Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged additions made under section 69A and disallowance of cost of improvement for capital gains. The assessee claimed to be trading in agricultural produce and sought credit for improvement costs. Both lower authorities had upheld the additions/disallowances.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to adequately prove his trading activities and the cost of improvement. Consequently, a reduced lump sum addition of Rs. 1,25,400/- was made for agricultural income, and a lump sum disallowance of Rs. 2,14,985/- was made for capital gains, neither to be treated as precedent.
Key Issues
Validity of additions under section 69A and disallowance of cost of improvement for capital gains, and adequacy of proof for trading activities and expenses.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 69A, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
ORDER This assesseee’s appeal for assessment year 2019-20, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082889899(1), dated 21.11.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It transpires that during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant raises his sole of substantive ground inter alia challenging both the Learned lower authorities relevant assessment lower appellate findings making section 69A addition of Rs. 11,25,400/- in assessment as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
That being case, it is noticed that the assessee/appellant herein has seen admittedly assessed his trader in agricultural produces the learned counsel has placed reliance on the corresponding computation duly accepted in preceding succeeding assessments; as case may be. The fact however remains that the assessee has not be able to plead and prove his impugned trading activities as actually carried out in the relevant previous year to the entire satisfaction on both the learned lower authorities. It is thus appropriate going by also admitted factual position leading his said the assessee’s socio economic status that a lump sum addition of Rs. 1,25,400/- would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee got relief of Rs. 10,00,000/- in other words.
Learned counsel next seeks the relief of the assessee cost of improvement amounting to Rs. 6,14,985/- in computation of his capital gains. He could hardly dispute that assessee has not been seen also to plead and proved the impugned cost of construction in both lower proceeding. Be that as it may, this tribunal deems it proper that a lump sum disallowance of Rs. 2,14,985/- only in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs. 4,00,000/- in other words. No other ground or argument has been pressed.