Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal arises from an order disallowing the cost of construction and commission expenses claimed for computing long-term capital gains. The lower authorities disallowed the entire claim.
Held
The Tribunal found that while the assessee could not fully prove the claimed expenses, such claims could not be entirely ruled out. The appeal was partly allowed on estimation basis.
Key Issues
Whether the cost of construction and commission expenses claimed by the assessee for long-term capital gains are allowable, and to what extent, when not fully substantiated?
Sections Cited
147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 JAG Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, RZ 203, Kirari Extn., Partap Vihar, DEL-W-(56)(6), Phase-1, Nangloi, New Delhi-110041 Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AUMPD3682M Assessee by: Sh. Deepak Gupta, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072111390(1) dated 13.01.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
Delay of 178 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
It transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have inter alia disallowed the assessee’s cost of construction of Rs.26,74,000/- and JAG Devi commission of Rs.77,000/-; respectively for the purpose of computing long term capital gains arising from sale/transfer of capital asset in question. The Revenue vehemently contends in this factual backdrop that it was the assessee’s onus only to plead and prove all the relevant facts on both the foregoing issues.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s Revenue’s vehement rival submissions. I find no reason to accept either party’s stand in entirety. This is for the precise reason that such clams of cost of construction as well as transfer expenditure on brokerage etc. in an instance of long term capital assets held for quite some time could not be altogether ruled out. Be that as it may, the assessee is found not to have been able to successfully pleaded and proved all the relevant facts qua both these claim before the learned lower authorities. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that her impugned cost of construction deserves to be accepted to the extent of Rs.14,00,000/- and commission payment of Rs.50,000/- on estimation basis only. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. It is made clear that the assessee’s instant estimation on both these counts shall not be treated as a precedent.