Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) which confirmed disallowances related to the indexed cost of inflation and cost of improvement for Assessment Year 2016-17. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) failed to consider an adjournment request and the disallowances were made without proper examination.
Held
The Tribunal held that the issue of indexed cost of inflation was not examined correctly by the Assessing Officer and restored it for fresh examination, allowing the ground for statistical purposes. Regarding the cost of improvement, the Tribunal found it allowable after examining the details filed by the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering an adjournment request and confirming disallowances without proper examination of indexed cost of inflation and cost of improvement.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Hemant Jashubhai Gandhi, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. 20-B, Shree Shaktinagar Society, of Income Tax, Opp. Experimental School, Circle-1(3), Nr. Ambika Ni Ketan Temple, Surat. Parle Point, Surat-395007. [PAN : AAWPG3547 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ashish Bhoola, AR Respondent by: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.01.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“the CIT(A) in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
That CIT(A) has erred passing ex-parte order without considering adjournment request dtd 23/12/2024 seeking time up to dtd 07/01/2025 and erred in confirming repurchase of property legally purchased through agreement of sale and disallowance of Cost of Inflation of Rs.38,69,451/- 2. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.4,76,250 (1.e.75% of Rs.6,35,000/-) being Cost of Improvement fully incurred by the 3. That the disallowance of Cost of Inflation of Rs.38,69,451/- & disallowance of Cost of Improvement of Rs.4,76,250/- of may kindly be deleted or alternatively the case Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 2– may kindly be set aside to CIT(A) with direction to give reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal.
Ground No. 1 3. With regard to Ground No. 1 relating to the indexed cost of inflation, we find that the issue has not been examined by the Assessing Officer in the correct perspective. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and passing the order after due verification. Thus, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Ground No.2 and 3
In respect of Ground Nos. 2 and 3, the Assessing Officer made disallowance on account of indexed cost of inflation and cost of improvement, which was summarily confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Upon perusal of the records and the details of expenses filed by the assessee before us, which have been duly examined, we are of the view that the cost of improvement of Rs.4,76,250/- is allowable. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee on Ground Nos. 2 and 3 is allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 23.01.2026. (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE-PRESIDENT () Surat; Dated 23.01.2026 **mv Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 3–