KUSUM DEVI,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD 2(3(, ALWAR
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1305/JPR/2024
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11
Ward-2(3),
Alwar.
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: DWQPD0130K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Anoop Bhatia, C.A.
jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by:
Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing
: 07/05/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member
Present appeal pertains to the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee, named above, is feeling aggrieved by the order dated
29.08.2024, passed by Learned CIT(A), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
2. Vide impugned order, Learned CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
2
Kusum Devi, Alwar
The assessee was before Learned CIT(A), while challenging the assessment order dated 15.11.2017, passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act.
Admittedly, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee recomputed her total income as under:-
“1. Salary income (As shown in the ITR)
Rs. 98,505/-
Capital gain (short term):-
Rs. 6,94,497/-
- Sale consideration (u/s 50C)
Rs. 15,49,515/-
- Deduction (as discussed in para 2 above)
Rs. 8,55,018/-
Income from other sources: (as declared in ITR) Rs. 307/-
Total
Rs. 7,93,309/-“
While dealing with the appeal of the assessee, Learned CIT(A) felt satisfied that the assessee had established, by way of production of bills, that a sum of Rs. 65,040/- was incurred towards renovation/construction of immovable property i.e. House No. 2/517, SWB, Kala Kuwa Housing Board, Alwar. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was directed to consider a sum of Rs. 65,040/- as cost of improvement and also to allow the benefit of indexation for the purpose of computation of long term capital gains. 4. Hence, this appeal by the assessee. 5. Arguments heard. File perused.
3
Kusum Devi, Alwar
As noticed above, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act, and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 31.03.2017. The assessee furnished return of income declaring income of Rs. 98,810/-, in response to the above said notice. 7. It is an admitted fact that the assessee sold the above said immovable property i.e. House No. 2, situated at Alwar, vide registered sale deed dated 08.10.2009 and executed sale deed in favour of her daughter in law Smt. Manisha Sharma W/o Shri Simant Chaturvedi; that the Sub-