Parity in co-owner capital-gains treatment prevents taxing sale consideration where identical facts establish no gain arose.

Where co-owners undertake the same property transaction on identical facts, a final Revenue finding that no capital gains arose for one co-owner supports identical treatment for the other. The notes state that the Revenue had accepted in the husband's reassessment that the property's purchase and sale prices were identical and no gain arose. Applying parity of reasoning, the assessee's sale consideration could not be assessed as short-term capital gains without allowing the corresponding acquisition cost. The notes also record that an unrebutted affidavit explaining delayed awareness of the reassessment order through the income-tax portal constituted reasonable cause for condoning the delayed first appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the first appeal should be condoned; (ii) Whether the addition of the assessee's share of sale consideration as short-term capital gains was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the first appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The affidavit explaining that the reassessment order and demand came to the assessee's notice upon accessing the income-tax portal was unrebutted. This constituted reasonable cause for the delayed appeal.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition of the assessee's share of sale consideration as short-term capital gains was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee and her husband were co-owners of the property. In the husband's reassessment, the Revenue had accepted that the purchase price and sale price were identical and that no capital gains arose; that finding had attained finality. Applying parity of reasoning to the assessee's identical co-ownership transaction, the sale consideration could not be treated as taxable capital gain without allowing the corresponding cost of acquisition.

Conclusion: The addition towards short-term capital gains was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to identical capital-gains treatment as the co-owner where the Revenue had conclusively accepted that the same property's sale produced no gain.

Ratio Decidendi: A final Revenue finding that an identical co-owner transaction yielded no capital gains applies on parity of reasoning to the other co-owner where the material facts are the same.

---