SMT. ANITA RANI,JAMMU V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, PATHANKOT

ITA 246/ASR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Anita Rani, a teacher, who appealed against the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessment was initially framed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on a best judgment basis under sections 144 and 147 of the Income Tax Act, due to the assessee's failure to provide sufficient evidence of the construction cost of her sold residential house. The AO estimated the cost of acquisition and added capital gains to her income. The first appeal to the CIT(A) was unsuccessful as the assessee could not provide evidence for the construction cost. The Tribunal, however, found that even with a reduced construction cost estimate, the capital gains would be 'Nil', leading to the allowance of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 786505 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHARAN DASS LD.
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘DB’, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 246/ASR/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Anita Rani C/o Shri J.S.Bedi 638-A, Gandhi Nagar Jammu – 180004 बनाम/ Vs. ITO Pathankot Ward Pathankot Punjab - 145001 ˕ायी लेखा सं./PAN. AARPR-0843-D (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) : (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) अपीलाथŎकीओरसे/Appellant by : None ŮȑथŎकीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 12-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 arises out of an order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 07-03-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. AO on best judgment basis u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 06-12-2019. The registry has noted delay of 298 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by the assessee on the strength of condonation petition Printed from counselvise.com 2 along with supporting documentary evidences which is placed on record. Considering the same, we condone the delay and proceed with adjudication of appeal on merits. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal. 2. Upon perusal of assessment order, it could be seen that the assessee is a teacher. Due to adverse medical conditions, the assessee and her husband sold a residential house for Rs.10 Lacs. The Ld. AO estimated cost of acquisition of Rs.8 Lacs and computed capital gains of Rs.2 Lacs. The assessee’s share of Rs.1 Lacs was finally added to her income. During first appeal, the assessee furnished actual computations and arrived at capital loss of Rs.1 Lacs. The computations have been extracted at Page No.5 of the impugned order. The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the same on the ground that no evidence was produced by the assessee towards construction cost of Rs.3.50 Lacs. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. From assessee’s computation, it could be seen that the assessee has purchased the land for Rs.2.40 Lacs and incurred expenses of Rs.0.10 Lacs. The assessee spent Rs.3.50 Lacs on the construction and thus, arrived at loss of Rs.1 Lacs. However, the assessee could not furnish sufficient documents in support of construction cost. However, even if construction cost is taken to be Printed from counselvise.com 3 Rs.2.50 Lacs, still the capital gains would be ‘Nil’. Therefore, we delete the impugned addition of Rs.1 Lacs and allow the appeal of the assessee. 4. The appeal stand allowed. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (UDAYAN DAS GUPTA) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 17/11/2025 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊफाईल/GF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT AMRITSAR Printed from counselvise.com "