SHANMUGHASUNDHARAMRAMANATHAN,CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW-10(6), CHENNAI

ITA 888/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shanmughasundharam Ramanathan, the appellant, who contested the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2017-18 concerning the sale of immovable property and the computation of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG). The Assessing Officer (AO) had adjusted the indexed cost of acquisition and disallowed certain expenses related to the property transfer. The appellant's appeal to the CIT(A) resulted in a partial relief regarding the base year for indexation but did not address all the additional grounds raised. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a comprehensive review of the additional grounds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 653069 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: G. AKASH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences; Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ \u0011ा यपीठ, चे\u0016ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0019ी एबी टी. वक , \u0011ा ियक सद! एवं \u0019ी जगदीश, लेखा सद! क े सम( BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.888/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shanmughasundharam Ramanathan, No.45, Theosophical Society, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [PAN: AAFPS 6078P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-10(6), Chennai. (अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant) (\b यथ\u0007/Respondent) अपीलाथ की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri G. Akash, Advocate GHथ की ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 08.01.2025 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 23.12.2019. ITA No.888/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. The assessee is an individual and filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 13,63,43,220/-. The assessee has sold immovable property for total consideration of Rs. 20,00,00,000/- and declared Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs. 13,53,87,969/-. In the assessment order, the A.O has computed LTCG after considering the indexed cost of acquisition as on 1990-91 as against 1980-81 taken by the assessee. The A.O has also disallowed the cost of improvement to the extent of 20% of the claimed amount of Rs.93,75,000/- and commission expenses related to the transfer of property to the extent of Rs 2,00,000/- in the computation of income on the ground that the assessee failed to provide supporting evidences. The assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and raised the following grounds: “1. The AO erred in passing the impugned order without considering the submissions of the Appellant in a proper pespective. The AO erred in completing the assessment in a tasty manner 2. The AO erred in considering the base year indexation as 2009- 2010 instead of 1981-1982. The AO ought to have consider the value as on 1.4.81. 3. The AO erred in levying interest u/s 234A a mounting to Rs. 1,85,648/-, any event, the interest levied is high, arbitrary and excessive which needs to be deleted in toto. 4. The AO erred in levying interest u/s 234C amounting to Rs.76,426/- and u/s 234D amounting to Rs.1,65,053/-.In any event, the interest le vied is high, arbitrary and excessive which needs to be deleted in toto.” ITA No.888/Chny/2025 :- 3 -: 3. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s appeal by directing the A.O to recalculate the indexed cost by adopting the base year as 1981-82. However, the assessee has filed present appeal challenging the disallowance 20% of the claimed cost of improvement amounting to Rs. 18,75,000/- and the disallowance of commission expenses of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly directed the A.O to adopt the cost of acquisition, taking the base year as 1981-82 but has not adjudicated the additional grounds raised before the Ld. CIT(A) as under: “1. I sold a property during this relevant Assessment year and I also admitted capital gains in my Return of Income filed by me. The AO called for the details of value of land as on 01.04.1981 from the Sub-Registrar Royapettah and concluded that the value of the land is Rs.2,19,958/-; the same value admitted by me. Similarly in respect of the building the AO calculated the value of the building as on 01.04.1981 on the basis of the CPWD rates available at that time and arrived at the value of the building as on 01.04.1981 at Rs.4,31,428/- as against Rs. 12,50,000/- admitted by me, 2. I had claimed that the value of the land and building as on 01.04.1981 was Rs. 14,69,958/-. I had claimed cost of improvement Rs.93,75,000/- however the AO disallow 18,75,000/- and concluded the assessment. Further the AO granted the benefit of indexation only from 2010; when I inherited the property consequent of the death of my wife. My wife acquired the property from her mother by a deed of settlement in 1980. However, the property was originally acquired by my mother in law long back in 1948. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present appeal challenging the action of the AO in not granting indexation from 1981, but only from 2010. By oversight I did not object to the action of AO in reducing the cost of acquisition of the building as on 01.04.1981. ITA No.888/Chny/2025 :- 4 -: 4. Therefore, in continuation of the original grounds of appeal which was submitted along with form 35, the following additional grounds of appeal are being submitted for the kind consideration and adjudication of the learned CIT(A).” 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), has relied on the orders of lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, nor has he discussed the same in the appellate order. In our considered opinion, it is appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing without fail and furnish complete details for effective disposal of the appeal. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 18th day of June, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY. T. Varkey) \u0011ाियक सद! / Judicial Member (जगदीश) (Jagadish) लेखा सद! /Accountant Member चे\u0010नई/Chennai, \u0013दनांक/Dated: 18th June, 2025. EDN/- ITA No.888/Chny/2025 :- 5 -: आदेश क\u0016 \bितिल\u0019प अ\u001aे\u0019षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\b/Appellant 2. थ\b/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु\u0010/CIT, Madurai 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u0019 फाईल/GF "