DATTATRAYA PIMPLE THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SACHIN PIMPLE,AMRAVATI vs. ITO WARD-5, AMRAVATI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, considering that the case pertains to a deceased assessee and the legal heir is willing to provide substantiating documents, decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed indexed cost of improvement on sale of immovable property, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer due to lack of supporting documents. This disallowance was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee challenged the order before the Tribunal.
What were the issues?
Whether the indexed cost of improvement can be disallowed solely on the grounds of lack of documentary evidence, especially when the assessee offers to provide it later.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
IT Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
The instant appeal by the assessee is against the impugned order dated 10/12/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pune, [for short, “Ld. Commissioner”] for the assessment year 2014–15.
In this appeal, the Assessing Officer, while considering long term capital gain earned on sale of immovable property, situated at Amravati District, on 17/04/2013, by the deceased assessee, though
2 Dattatraya Pimple (Deceased) Through Legal Heir Shri Sachin Pimple allowed the index cost of acquisition for an amount of ` 8,38,393/– however, disallowed indexed cost of improvement claimed by the assessee at ` 25,04,000/– by holding that in the absence of any supporting documents / evidence, indexed cost of improvement claimed by the assessee is rejected. The assessee, though, challenged the said decision of the Assessing Officer before the Ld. Commissioner, however, of no avail, as the Ld. Commissioner, in the absence of relevant document/evidence, which the assessee admittedly failed to furnish, affirmed the aforesaid decision of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the indexed cost of improvement.
Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,. As the assessee prayed for leniency and willing to substantiate its claim and as the case pertains to the deceased assessee and now represented by the legal heir, therefore, this Court, by considering this case as exception, is inclined to remand the entire matter to the file of the Assessing Officer on which ld.DR has also agreed to. Thus, the Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue involved afresh by taking into consideration the relevant and substantial documents / evidences to be filed by the assessee. It is clarified that, in case of subsequent default, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
3 Dattatraya Pimple (Deceased) Through Legal Heir Shri Sachin Pimple
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/06/2025
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
