TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1297
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....record that after filing the appeal the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee had appeared on 07.10.2025 but thereafter there is no appearance on behalf of the assessee despite several opportunities were given to the assessee to prosecute the present appeal. Accordingly, the Bench proposed to hear and dispose of the present appeal ex-parte. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. Error in disallowing indexed cost of demolished building The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the Assessing Officer's disallowance of 211,24,472/- towards the indexed cost of acquisition of the demolished building, even after acknowledging that: * The assessee had purchased t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er" as defined in Section 2(47)(ii). "Section 2(47)(ii) in The Income Tax Act, 1961 The "transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes, the extinguishment of any rights therein" This interpretation has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Vania Silk Mills (P) Ltd. (191 ITR 647) and by the ITAT Ahmedabad in Shri Kiritkumar Kantilal Shroff v. DCIT, where it was held that demolition and conversion of the building into scrap is a form of transfer attracting the computation provisions of Section 48. 4. Substance over form in capital gains computation The approach adopted by the Learned CIT(A), relying solely on the recital in the registered sale deed describing the property a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6), the appellate authorities have plenary powers to admit and allow fresh claims even if they were not made in the original return, especially when the facts are already on record and no fresh evidence is required. 7. Contradiction in CIT(A) findings The Learned CIT(A) himself records in para 5.5 of the appellate order that there exists "a direct nexus of building and consideration of scrap" and that both are "intimately connected. Such a finding supports the assessee's claim for allowance of the indexed cost of the demolished structure, yet the CIT(A) has inexplicably proceeded to uphold the disallowance inconsistent and legally untenable conclusion. PRAYER In view of the above facts and settled leg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Assessing Officer before the learned CIT(A) but could not succeed. Though the assessee has filed the present appeal however, despite various opportunities and initial adjournment taken by the assessee, the assessee stopped appearing before the Tribunal. The assessee has raised this issue and contended that he purchased the property in question in the year 2012 and the same was sold vide sale deed dated 17.02.2017 for a consideration of Rs. 2 crores. The assessee claimed indexed cost of acquisition of the property of Rs. 1,83,20,863/- and declared long-term capital gains of Rs. 16,69,137/- to tax. The assessee has claimed that there was a cement shed on the said property in a dilapidated condition which was demolished by the assessee befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....return of income. This claim of appellant cannot be considered in the view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 182: (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court has held that the assessee can make a claim for deduction, which has not been claimed in the return, only by filing a revised return within the time allowed. In this case, the appellant did not raise such claim in return of income or revised return of income. Moreover, the appellant has not submitted any documentary proof of expenditure of Rs. 1 lac being made on demolishing the building. 5.6. Further, for once, if the appellant had sold the said property without demolishing the building, then: ....