KAMINIBEN JAGDISHBHAI PATEL,ANAND V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANAND, ANAND

ITA 2/AHD/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Kaminiben Jagdishbhai Patel, an NRI, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The primary contention was the dismissal of her appeal in limine by the CIT(A) without merit consideration and the rejection of her request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, citing her NRI status and absence from the country as genuine reasons. The Tribunal also addressed the incorrect assessment of the property sale as a 'Short Term Capital Gain' without considering the indexed cost of acquisition and improvements.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 848437 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Ahmedabad
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2026
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VEERABADRAM VISLAVATH
• Assessee Lawyers: A K KHANDELWAL
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT And Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2/Ahd/2026 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kaminiben Jagdishbhai Patel, 8, Akshar Bhuvan , Royal Park Opp. Aksharfarm, Pramukh Swami Marg, Anand-388001. [PAN :AWUPP6590 L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri AK Khandelwal, AR Respondent by: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27.03.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That, in law, the impugned appellate order passed by the Id CIT(A) National Faceless Appellate Centre (NFAC), New Delhi is against natural justice, bad in law and therefore, deserves to be annulled. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2/Ahd/2026 Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2– 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal appeal in-limine without deciding the appeal on merits even though various documents filed on record 3. That the Id CIT(A) erred in rejecting the request of the appellant for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal despite the fact that the appellant is an NRI and was out of country at the relevant time which is a genuine and bonafide reason for condonation of delay. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground's of appeal on or before hearing of the appeal. 3. Heard the argument of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. The assessee has sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 21,40,000/-, which was originally purchased in the year 2005 for Rs. 1,94,500/-. After applying the indexation benefit, the indexed cost of acquisition works out to Rs. 4,52,171/-. The assessee has also incurred cost of improvement which is supported by the contractor’s bill. After applying indexation, the indexed cost of improvement works out to Rs. 8,87,225/-, leaving a “Long Term Capital Gain” of Rs. 8,00,164/-. The assessee, being an NRI, could not reply to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Ld. CIT(A), which resulted in a summary assessment under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961. On going through the records, we find that the Assessing Officer has not considered the cost of improvement and treated the entire sale consideration as “Short Term Capital Gain”. The Assessing Officer has also made additions in respect of fixed deposits made out of the sale proceeds. After considering the material placed before us, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be served by adjudicating the issue on merits. The sale Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2/Ahd/2026 Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 3– value, purchase cost, and cost of improvement of the property are not in dispute. Further, the fixed deposits made out of the sale consideration of the property are also not in dispute. In view of the above facts, we determine the “Long Term Capital Gain” at Rs. 8,00,164/-. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 27.03.2026. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy)(True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 27.03.2026 MV 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, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "