GHANSHYAMBHAI DUNGARBHAI SUTARIYA,SURAT V. ITO, WARD 3(2)(2), SURAT

ITA 1277/SRT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Ghanshyambhai Dungarbhai Sutariya against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld the addition of Rs.16,75,627/- to the assessee's income for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer, who disallowed the cost of improvement claimed by the assessee on a property sold in 2013-14. The property, which included land and a house, was purchased in 2005-06 and sold after eight years. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the Assessing Officer's calculation of the cost of construction over an implausibly extended period and ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831710 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAMITA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAPNESH SHETH

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1277/SRT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ghanshyambhai Dungarbhai Sutariya, Plot No.1, Sahaj Park Soceity, B/h Kailashdham Society, Vallabhacharya Marg, A.K. Road, Surat - 395008 [PAN: AKKPP9318E] Vs. ITO, Ward – 3(2)(2), Surat (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Respondent by: Ms Namita Patel, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.01.2026 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 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 28.03.2024, under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.16,75,627/- by disallowing the cost of improvement. The facts of the case are that assessee purchased land for Rs.1,30,000/- during the year 2005-06 and constructed a house and sold the house along with the land in the year 2013-14 after a period of 8 years for Rs.45,25,000/-. 3. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee has submitted the statement of contractor and balance sheet in which the value of plot and construction thereof shown at Rs.20,65,500/-. The same are not in dispute. Hence, we are unable to find the action Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1277/Srt/2024 Asst. Year: 2013-14 - 2 of the Assessing Officer determining cost of construction @900 taken in the year 2018- 19. The chart made by the Assessing Officer is as under: F.Y. Cost of Construction F.Y. Cost of Construction 2018-19 800 2010-11 344 2017-18 720 2009-10 310 2016-17 648 2008-09 279 2015-16 583 2007-08 251 2014-15 525 2006-07 226 2013-14 472 2005-06 203 2012-13 425 2004-05 183 2011-12 383 2003-04 164.71 4. Acceptance of the chart by Assessing Officer, would give effect cost that the house is being constructed from 2003-04 to 2018-19. It cannot be supported the house has built for a period of 13 years, hence, the computation made by the Assessing Officer determining the cost of improvement cannot be accepted. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 23.01.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Surat; Dated 23.01.2026 **SAMANTA आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,/ DR, ITAT, Surat 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Asstt. Registrar, Surat Printed from counselvise.com "