Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an order concerning the assessment year 2010-11, related to the computation of capital gains. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on the purchase of an immovable property, suspecting the source of funds.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantiated the source of investment for the property purchase, relying on evidence presented, including sale agreements and bank transactions. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
Key Issues
Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in disallowing the claim for deduction under Section 54 and making an addition under Section 69 when the source of investment was substantiated?
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 148, 54, 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH
Before: HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Pushpinder Oberai DCIT H-801 One North Plot No 35 F, NH 22, बनाम/ Near Magarpatta Township Near Toll Tax Barrier, HPMC Road Vs. Opposite YOO Pune Parwanoo (HP) - 173220 Hadspar, Pune-411028 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAFPO-7214-B (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ� / Respondent) : अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Devendra Jain (Advocate) – Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 11-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 17-09-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 15-09-2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act on 20-11-2017. The assessee is aggrieved by assessment of capital gains by Ld. AO.
Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under. The registry has noted delay of 78 delays in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of condonation petition which is accompanied by an affidavit of the assessee. The assessee is a retired Colonel in the Indian Army. The delay is stated to have happened owing to adverse medical conditions being faced by assessee’s daughter and mother. In the interest of justice, we condone the delay and proceed for adjudication of the appeal on merits.
The assessment of the assessee was reopened vide notice u/s 148 dated 29-03-2017. The same was in the background of the fact that the assessee purchased certain immoveable property at Mumbai for Rs.165 Lacs. The substantial purchase amount of Rs.138 Lacs was stated to be sourced out of bank loan whereas remaining amount was stated to be earned out of sale of property at Noida and normal income earned by the assessee. However, the said transaction was not reflected in the return of income. For this issue, the case was reopened. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noted by Ld. AO that the assessee sold certain property at Noida for Rs.55 Lacs and after claiming indexation of purchase cost, computed Capital Gains of Rs.27.44 Lacs. Against this, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54 and reduced the gains to nil. The assessee was directed to substantiate the sale transaction. After considering assessee’s submissions from time to time, Ld. AO proceeded to compute the capital gains in the hands of the assessee.
It was noted by Ld. AO that the assessee purchased three flats at Mumbai for Rs.165.75 Lacs vide purchase agreement dated 08-09- 2009. The amount of Rs.137.50 Lacs was funded out of housing loan which was not in dispute. The source to the extent of Rs.55 Lacs was stated to be arising out of a property situated at Noida. In support, the assessee furnished sale agreement dated 04-01-2010 which is extracted in the assessment order. This agreement was a tripartite agreement between the assessee, Smt. Sushila Sukumaran as second party and Shri Anil Kumar Tyagi as third party. The consideration of Rs.55 Lacs was stated to be received by Smt. Sushila Sukumaran (second party) and accordingly, Ld. AO disbelieved the sources of investment to the extent of Rs.55 Lacs. The assessee failed to substantiate its stand properly with documentary evidences and accordingly, the amount of Rs.55 Lacs was added u/s 69. Consequently, the deduction claimed u/s 54 was also denied to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the stand of Ld. AO against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.
The Ld. AR has placed on record an agreement dated 26-10- 2009 which is between the assessee and Smt. Sushila Kumaran. Upon perusal of the same, it could be seen that the assessee has received an amount of Rs.50 Lacs from Smt. Sushila Kumaran vide cheques dated 19-08-2009, 26-08-2009 and 24-10-2009. The Ld. AR demonstrated that these cheques were duly credited in assessees’ bank account. The same are also evidenced by bank certificates as placed on record. Upon due consideration of relevant material, It emerges that Smt. Sushila Kumaran has chosen to sell the property to another buyer vide subsequent sale agreement dated 04-01-2010 and received sale consideration from the seller. The assessee has acted as confirming party only. This being so, the source of investment in the hands of the assessee stood substantiated and there is no reason left to disbelieve the claim of the assessee. In such a case, the computation of capital gains and consequential deduction claimed u/s 54 could not be denied to the assessee. Accordingly, we delete the impugned addition of Rs.55 Lacs and allow the appeal of the assessee. No other ground has been urged in the appeal.
The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced on 17-09-2025.