2026 (6) TMI 674

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ome Tax(Appeals) NFAC dismissing the appeal is contrary to law, erroneous and unsustainable on the facts of the case. 2. The CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Short Term Capital Gains of Rs. 1,05,00,000/-. 3. The CIT(A) NFAC was not justified in treating the cost of construction details given by assessee as an additional evidence and refusing to give the benefit of indexation on the construction cost incurred by assessee in 2003. 4. The CIT(A) NFAC having held that the sale deed was a public document and not additional evidence, also ought to have seen that Annexure 1- A providing details of the construction on the land forms part of the sale deed and hence the construction details filed by assessee ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and was thereafter served by affixture. 4. As the assessee had no knowledge of the proceedings, no response was filed to the notice u/s. 148A(b). Thereafter, the Income Tax Officer passed an order u/s. 148A(d) dated 11.04.2022, wherein it was recorded that a copy of the sale deed had been obtained from the Sub-Registrar Office, Karaikudi pursuant to enquiries conducted u/s. 148A(a) of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 was also issued. 5. In response, the assessee filed a return of income on 30.11.2023 declaring LongTerm Capital Loss (LTCL) of Rs. 40,91,872/-. The loss was computed after claiming indexed cost of acquisition of land and indexed cost of construction of the building standing on the land. The assessee claimed that the property com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... filed seeking admission of such evidence, the ld.CIT(A) declined to admit the same and held that the cost of construction could not be considered while computing capital gains. Consequently, the benefit of indexation on the cost of construction was denied. 9. The ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that there was no additional evidence furnished by the assessee either before the ld.CIT(A) or before the Tribunal. It was contended that the AO himself had obtained the sale deed from the Sub-Registrar Office, Karaikudi, as specifically recorded in paragraph 4 of the order passed u/s. 148A(d). Therefore, the observation in the assessment order that the assessee had not furnished the sale deed was factually incorrect. 10. It was f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed the details relating to construction as additional evidence and declined to admit the same in the absence of compliance with Rule 46A.It was further contended that the burden to establish the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement rested upon the assessee and, having failed to discharge the same before the AO, the assessee could not seek relief at the appellate stage. 14. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The undisputed factual position is that the AO had obtained the registered sale deed from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Karaikudi during the proceedings u/s. 148A. This fact stands specifically recorded in the order passed u/s. 148A(d). Therefore, the observation made in th....