TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 161
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act, dated 28/03/2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: "1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct either on facts or in law and in both. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the First Appellate Authority is not justified in upholding the Order of the Ld.AO in making an addition of Rs. 14,63,600/- towards long term capital gains. 3. The appellant craves, leave to add amend or alter any of the grounds at the time of the hearing of the appeal." 2. Succinctly stated, the AO based on information available on RMS module of the Insight portal that the assessee during the subject year had carried out sale of immovable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... thus had resulted in a long term capital loss (LTCG) of (-) Rs. 2,021/-. 4. Ostensibly, the assessee, in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, dated 11/03/2025, filed his return of income after expiry of the time allowed. The AO vide his letter, dated 11/03/2025, directed the assessee to provide a copy of the purchase deed to support his claim regarding the consideration paid for acquiring the property. However, the assessee failed to come forth with any reply. 5. The AO, in the absence of any details supporting the cost of acquisition claimed by the assessee, observed that the same did not merit acceptance as the reported cost of land or purchase value was significantly higher than the prevailing market value o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee is not conversant with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the procedures related to the appellate proceedings, he was dependent upon a tax consultant to look after his tax related matters and was under a bona fide belief that he would take care of all the proceedings before the Department and the appellate authorities. Unfortunately, the assessee's tax consultant, who is aged about 77 years, fell into serious illhealth and therefore his son, Sri P V Raghavendra Kumar, the present Ld. AR for the assessee, had taken up the matter and filed the present appeal before the Tribunal, which by the time involved a delay of 9 days. Therefore, the Ld. AR pleaded that since there is a bona fide reason for not filing the appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsideration is both based on misconceived facts and devoid of any force of law. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that as the assessee along with the other co-owners/family members had sold the property vide a sale deed, dated 29/04/2017, during the period relevant to the AY 2018-19, there could have been no justification to have subjected the capital gains arising on the said sale transaction to tax during the year under consideration. The Ld. AR to buttress his contention had taken us through the copy of the sale deed, dated 29/04/2017, Page 15-21 of APB, which fortified his aforesaid claim. 13. Per contra, Shri B Laxmi Kanth, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, "Ld. Sr-DR"), relied upon the orders ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red by him from the RMS module of the Insight portal for the subject year, which revealed that the assessee had sold the immovable property through SRO, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad for a consideration of Rs. 60 lakhs. Admittedly, it is a fact that the assessee had failed to respond to the notice issued by the AO under section 148A(b) of the Act, as a result whereof an order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 26/03/2024 was passed by him. 16. Although, we find that the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings had submitted before the AO that the cost of acquisition of the inherited residential house that was sold by him along with his family members worked out at Rs. 60,08,082/-, and had also computed the long term capital g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Navin Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax [2010] 320 ITR 708 (SC). In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that for the purposes of Section 48 of the Act, one must keep in mind an important principle, namely, that chargeability and computation has to go hand in hand. 18. Before parting, we may herein observe that neither anything is discernible from the record available before us; nor has been brought to our notice by the Ld. AR which would reveal that the subject property was transferred by the assessee and his family members on a date anterior to the date of the sale deed, as a result whereof the transfer transaction could safely be related to the year under co....