Radhika Bahadur vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation 1(1)(2)

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the Assessment Order dated 28.12.2024 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income TaxAct,1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for Assessment Year 2016-17.

The assessee in appeal has raised following grounds:-

Shri Rohan Khare, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee is a non-resident. During the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee had sold her two properties. The one immovable property situated in Gurgaon, was sold for a total consideration of Rs.93,90,000/-, the second immovable property situated in Goa was sold for a consideration of Rs.72,55,500/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) show caused the assessee to furnish proof of purchase of both the properties. The assessee in response to notice dated 20.12.2023, furnished purchased deed before the AO vide acknowledgement no. 896011781100124 dated 10.01.2024. Again on 30.01.2024, the assessee furnished copy of both the purchase deeds alongwith other documents as sought by the AO vide show cause notice dated 23.01.2024. Despite the fact, the assessee had furnished purchase deed of Goa property, the AO erred in not granting the benefit of cost of acquisition of Goa property. The assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) inter alia assailing the Draft Assessment Order in not giving benefit of cost of acquisition of Goa property. The assessee furnished the detail vide which the purchase deed was furnished before the AO. The DRP accepted that the copy of purchase deed of Goa property was furnished to the AO during assessment proceedings, however, the DRP erred in holding that the cost of acquisition is not available in the said purchase deed. The ld. Counsel for the assessee placed on record at page 1 to 30 of paper book a copy of the said purchase deed which was furnished to the AO and pointed that in Schedule 2B of the Purchase Deed consideration for purchase of property Rs.68,20,000/- is clearly mentioned. The authorities below have failed to take note of the same. He thus, prayed for considering the said cost of acquisition qua Goa property.

In respect of ground no. 2 & 3 of appeal, the ld. Counsel submits that the AO has erred in making addition of Rs.2,26,00,500/- treating the credits in the bank account of the assessee as unexplained money. He submitted that the AO has erred in making addition of not only the credits in the bank statement but also the expenditure i.e. debits. Before the DRP, the assessee explained the folly committed by the AO in making addition of Rs.2,60,00,500/- u/s.69A of the Act. The DRP after considering submissions of the assessee and the bank statement deleted the addition to the extent of Rs.1,18,50,000/- reflecting payments and sustained the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,27,905/- u/s.68 of the Act. The ld. Counsel furnished a tabular chart explaining that the amounts credited in the account are on account of differential in the consideration received on sale of Goa property and sale of Gurgaon property. He further explained that Rs.3,46,400/- is in respect of encashment of life insurance policy from Aviva Insurance and Rs.6,98,313/- is in respect of payment received from HDFC Standard Life Policy. The ld. Counsel submitted that Rs.33,33,181/- was received in respect of sale of furniture etc. and the remaining amount of Rs.23,10,000/- is on account of payment received for Gurgaon property. The entire aforesaid receipts were directly credited to the bank account of the assessee. These details were furnished before the DRP, however, the DRP has failed to take note of the same.

Per contra, Shri M.S Nethrapal, representing the department strongly supported the assessment order and directions of the DRP. The ld. DR however, fairly stated that since the submissions made by the assessee are factual, the matter can be remanded back to the AO for verification.

Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. In ground no. 1 of appeal, the assessee has assailed findings of the AO and the DRP in not granting benefit of cost of acquisition while determining capital gains. Undisputedly, the assessee had furnished a copy of purchase deed dated 16.06.2009 before the AO on 10.01.2024. This fact is evident from directions of the DRP, however, we find that in para 5.1.3 of the DRP directions, the DRP has observed that the assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gain on sale of said property, but the consideration is not emerging from the said document and directed to get the details from the office of concerned Registrar in respect of the purchase consideration and, thereafter, recompute the capital gains. Thereafter, the AO neither made any effort to get the details of purchase consideration of said property from the office of Registrar nor even bothered to reexamine purchase deed wherein sale consideration has been mentioned in Schedule 2B. For the sake of completeness, the sale consideration mentioned in sale deed dated 16.06.2009 in Schedule 2B is reproduced herein below:-

The sale consideration is clearly borne out from the said purchase deed. The AO is directed to recompute capital gains of Goa property after granting the benefit of cost of acquisition as mentioned in the sale deed dated 16.06.2009 available at page 1 to 30 of the paper book. Thus, ground no. 1 of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid.

In ground no. 2 & 3 of appeal, the assessee has assailed addition of Rs.1,00,27,00,905/- treating part of sale proceeds of Goa property amounting to Rs.22,60,500/- and Rs.33,90,000/- of Gurgaon property as income from other sources instead of Long-Term Capital Gains. The contention of the assessee is that the amounts credited in the bank accounts are on account of part of sale consideration credited in the bank account of assessee. The assessee has furnished a table explaining the amounts directly credits into his bank accounts. The table furnished by the assessee is as under:-

Considering the submissions of the assessee, we deem it appropriate to restore ground no. 2 & 3 of appeal to the AO for reexamination of the amounts explained by the assessee. Needless to say that the AO shall grant reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law before adjudicating the issue.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday the 11^th day of December, 2025.