RADHIKA BAHADUR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 1(1)(2), DELHI
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण
धिल्ली पीठ “डी”, धिल्ली
श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य एिं
श्री ब्रजेश कुमार स िंह, लेखाकार सिस्य के समक्ष
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “D”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER&
SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आअसं.995/धिल्ली/2025(नि.व. 2016-17)
Radhika Bahadur,
C/o. R. Khare & Associates,
7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi 110016
PAN: AVAPB-3016-C
...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant
बिाम Vs.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax,
International Taxation 1(1)(2), Civic Centre,
Minto Road, New Delhi 110002
.....प्रनिवादी/Respondent
अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant by:
S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam Bhatnagar,
Advocates
प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent by:
Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date of hearing
:
11/12/2025
घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date of pronouncement
: 11/12/2025
आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the Assessment Order dated
28.12.2024
passed u/s.
143(3) r.w.s
144C(13) of the Income
TaxAct,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The assessee in appeal has raised following grounds:-
“1. That Learned ACIT, inspite of direction of DRP had not given benefit of cost of purchase of property while computing long term capital gains hence resulting into an addition of Rs 49,95,000 as long term capital gains which is not only bad in law but also against the facts and circumstances of the case.
2
2. The learned ACIT erred in fact and in law in treating the part of sale proceeds amounting to Rs 22,60,500( Goa property) and Rs 33,90,000 Gurugram property) as income from other sources instead of long term capital gains as declared which is not only bad in law but also against the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The learned ACIT erred in fact and in law in making an addition of Rs 1,00,27,905 as unexplained deposit in the bank which is not only bad in law but also against the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. Shri Rohan Khare, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee is a non-resident. During the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee had sold her two properties. The one immovable property situated in Gurgaon, was sold for a total consideration of Rs.93,90,000/-, the second immovable property situated in Goa was sold for a consideration of Rs.72,55,500/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer
(AO) show caused the assessee to furnish proof of purchase of both the properties.
The assessee in response to notice dated 20.12.2023, furnished purchased deed before the AO vide acknowledgement no. 896011781100124 dated 10.01.2024. Again on 30.01.2024, the assessee furnished copy of both the purchase deeds alongwith other documents as sought by the AO vide show cause notice dated
23.01.2024. Despite the fact, the assessee had furnished purchase deed of Goa property, the AO erred in not granting the benefit of cost of acquisition of Goa property. The assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) inter alia assailing the Draft Assessment Order in not giving benefit of cost of acquisition of Goa property. The assessee furnished the detail vide which the purchase deed was furnished before the AO. The DRP accepted that the copy of purchase deed of Goa property was furnished to the AO during assessment proceedings, however, the DRP erred in holding that the cost of acquisition is not available in the said purchase deed. The ld. Counsel for the assessee placed on 3
record at page 1 to 30 of paper book a copy of the said purchase deed which was furnished to the AO and pointed that in Schedule 2B of the Purchase Deed consideration for purchase of property Rs.68,20,000/- is clearly mentioned. The authorities below have failed to take note of the same. He thus, prayed for considering the said cost of acquisition qua Goa property.
4. In respect of ground no. 2 & 3 of appeal, the ld. Counsel submits that the AO has erred in making addition of Rs.2,26,00,500/- treating the credits in the bank account of the assessee as unexplained money. He submitted that the AO has erred in making addition of not only the credits in the bank statement but also the expenditure i.e. debits. Before the DRP, the assessee explained the folly committed by the AO in making addition of Rs.2,60,00,500/- u/s.69A of the Act. The DRP after considering submissions of the assessee and the bank statement deleted the addition to the extent of Rs.1,18,50,000/- reflecting payments and sustained the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,27,905/- u/s.68 of the Act. The ld. Counsel furnished a tabular chart explaining that the amounts credited in the account are on account of differential in the consideration received on sale of Goa property and sale of Gurgaon property. He further explained that Rs.3,46,400/- is in respect of encashment of life insurance policy from Aviva Insurance and Rs.6,98,313/- is in respect of payment received from HDFC Standard Life Policy. The ld. Counsel submitted that Rs.33,33,181/- was received in respect of sale of furniture etc. and the remaining amount of Rs.23,10,000/- is on account of payment received for Gurgaon property. The entire aforesaid receipts were directly credited to the bank account of the assessee. These details were furnished before the DRP, however, the DRP has failed to take note of the same.
4
5. Per contra, Shri M.S Nethrapal, representing the department strongly supported the assessment order and directions of the DRP. The ld. DR however, fairly stated that since the submissions made by the assessee are factual, the matter can be remanded back to the AO for verification.
6. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. In ground no. 1
of appeal, the assessee has assailed findings of the AO and the DRP in not granting benefit of cost of acquisition while determining capital gains. Undisputedly, the assessee had furnished a copy of purchase deed dated 16.06.2009 before the AO on 10.01.2024. This fact is evident from directions of the DRP, however, we find that in para 5.1.3 of the DRP directions, the DRP has observed that the assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gain on sale of said property, but the consideration is not emerging from the said document and directed to get the details from the office of concerned