AMARJIT SINGH MARWAHA ,SHIMLA vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

ITA 1379/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 January 2026AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President)8 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of unutilized LTCG could not be made in AY 2013-14 but should be taxed in the previous year when the three-year utilization period expires, thus deleting the addition. However, the Tribunal upheld the re-opening of the assessment, finding that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts regarding the LTCG, which constituted fresh information for the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an income tax return for AY 2013-14 which underwent scrutiny. Subsequently, the AO reopened the assessment under Section 148, alleging escapement of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) from the sale of a house. The AO made an addition of Rs.16,59,852/- after allowing partial deduction under Section 54F, arguing the balance was not utilized within three years.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the unutilized Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) was correctly added to income in AY 2013-14. 2. Whether the re-opening of assessment after four years was valid due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 54F,Section 54,Section 45

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH ,CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan Sr.Advocate, with Shri Abhinav Bijwaria, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Hearing: 21.01.2026Pronounced: 28.01.2026

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 28.08.2025 passed for assessment year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has taken three grounds of appeal out of which, ground No. 3 is general ground which does not call for recording of any specific finding. A.Y.2013-14 2

3.

In Ground No.1, assessee has challenged re-opening of assessment whereas in ground No. 2, assessee has pleaded that ld.CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.12,05,148/-.

4.

The brief facts

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →