SACHIN TYAGI S/O SH. SUBHASH CHAND,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD -1, YAMUNA NAGAR
1
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘B’ BENCH, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT
AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 418/CHANDI/2024
(िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2012-13)
Shri Sachin Tyagi
(S/o Subhash Chand)
House No. 524, Ward No.22,
Gobindpuri,
Yamuna
Nagar-
135001. बनाम/
Vs.
ITO, Ward No.4,
Yamuna Nagar-135001
̾थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AJAPT-0842-Q
(अपीलाथŎ/Appellant)
:
(ŮȑथŎ / Respondent)
अपीलाथŎकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Rajeev Sachdeva (CA) – Ld. AR
ŮȑथŎकीओरसे/Respondent by :
Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr.DR
सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing
:
09-04-2025
घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
21-04-2025
आदेश / O R D E R
Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 30-08-2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 30-11-2019. The registry has noted delay of 172 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of affidavit of the assessee. The delay has been attributed to lapse on the 2
part of representing counsel. Considering the period of delay and pleadings made in the condonation affidavit, we condone the delay and proceed for adjudication of appeal on merits. The sole grievance of the assessee is computation of capital gains. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed- off as under.
2. The assessee, along with co-owners, sold land measuring 426.9
Square Yards for Rs.128.07 Lacs on 17-10-2011. As per Ld. AO, the assessee was having ½ share in the same. Since the assessee did not file return of income, the case was reopened and various notices were issued to the assessee. However, the assessee failed to respond to hearing notices and accordingly, Ld. AO assessed capital gains of Rs.59.84 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment for the same very reason. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
3. The Ld. AR took us through the copy of sale deed as placed on Page Nos. 65 to 74 of the paper book and stated that the assessee was having only 1/4th share on the property but the same has wrongly been considered as ½ share by Ld. AO. Another point raised by Ld. AR is that the assessee made investment in new house and claimed deduction u/s 54/54F for Rs.12.39 Lacs which nullified the capital gains as earned by the assessee. The Ld. AR also stated that indexed cost of acquisition has been computed by the assessee as Rs.19.62 Lacs as is evident from revised return of income as filed by the assessee. The Ld.
AR stated that aforesaid computations are duly supported by valuation reports, the copies of which are placed on record.
Finding strength in all the above arguments of Ld. AR, we direct Ld. AO to re-verify the aforesaid claim of the assessee and re-compute the capital gains, if any, which are liable to be assessed in the hands of the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate the computations. No other ground has been urged in the appeal. 5. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 21-04-2025. (RAJPAL YADAV) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL)
VICE PRESIDENT लेखासद˟ /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 21-04-2025. आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant
2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent
3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT
4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR
5. गाडŊफाईल/GF