JAYKISHAN SONI,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-7(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1434/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Jay Kishan Soni, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding long-term capital gains and disallowance of cost of indexing and deduction under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The primary contention was the incorrect estimation of long-term capital gains and the rejection of claims for cost of indexing and deductions which the assessee argued were substantiated by expenditures on property maintenance and development over nearly 20 years. The Tribunal considered the unique circumstances of the property, including its rental to a government entity and the inability to produce certain documents due to the death of contractors, and decided in favor of the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785053 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 14-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROHIT AA SUDA NI
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1434/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jay Kishan Soni, 16 A, Anand Dham Co-Op. Society, Nava Wadaj, Bhimjipura, Ahmedabad-380013 [PAN : ADFPS 0664 J] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Ahmedabad (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr DR Date of Hearing 11.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.11.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT : Delay Condoned. 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 \"CIT(A)\" for short) dated 27.03.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the fact and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the order passed by ld. AO which is bad in law and bad on facts and is contrary to the principles of natural justice. The proceedings u/s 147/144 are bad in law and bad on facts. 2. On the fact and circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming estimation made by ld. AO on account of long term capital gain at Rs.10,04,290/- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1434/Ahd/2025 Jaykishan Soni Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2013-14 - 2– as against shown by the appellant at capital loss Rs.2,13,882/- which resulted to an enormous taxation imposition on the assessee which is unfair and it should which is un fare and it should be deleted as it is bad in law and absurd. Therefore the addition deserve to be deleted. 3. On the fact and circumstances of the case Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the AO's act for not allowing cost of indexing and rejecting it out right, He also erred in disallowing claim of deduction u/s 54F He had ignored whole relevant facts and cases of co seller with the assessee he has passed the arbitrary order without any basis therefore it deserve to be cancelled.” 3. The assessee is a joint owner of an immovable property on which a Govt. School has been functioning. The assessee received an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as his part of sale consideration. The Revenue determined indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.1,10,000/-. 3.1 The assessee submitted that over a period of nearly 20 years, substantial expenditure had been incurred towards development and maintenance of the property, which, after indexation, amounted to Rs. 8,13,882/-. Accordingly, the assessee declared a long-term capital loss of Rs. (-) 2,13,882/-. 3.2 Before the revenue authorities, the assessee could not submit the supporting bills and vouchers pertaining to the cost incurred for the development and maintenance cost. From the record, we find that it was a jointly owned property with other co-owners and the cost incurred in the case of co-owners has been accepted by the Revenue Department. It was also explained that the contractors who undertook the maintenance work had since expired, and therefore, the relevant documentary evidence could not be produced. This is a specific case where the co-owners are assessed at Rajasthan and no action has been taken by the Revenue Authorities. 3.3 Taking into consideration the entire aspects, including the fact that the building was rented to a Government Department, the factum of incurrence of expenditure on its maintenance cannot be ruled out. Keeping in view the quantum involved, the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1434/Ahd/2025 Jaykishan Soni Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2013-14 - 3– specificities of the case, and the treatment accorded by the Revenue in the cases of co- owners, we hold that assessee’s claim of having incurred such expenditure cannot be totally ruled out. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 12.11.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 12/11/2025 **btk आदेश की \u0007ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u0007 / The Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007 / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0015 / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु\u0015(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय \bितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation ……Open court dictation on 11.11.2025.. 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member …….11.11.2025….. 3. Other Member……….11.11.2025………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S …….11.11.2025….………. 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement …..12.11.2025…. 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S ……..12.11.2025………………. 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk ….12.11.2025…. 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… Printed from counselvise.com "