Subh Karan Yadav vs Income Tax Officer

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12 arises against order of National Faceless Appeal Centre/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi, in DIN & Order No: ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1081805109(1) dated 16.10.1995 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant raises his sole and substantive grievance challenging both the learned lower authorities’ respective assessment and lower appellate findings rejecting his section 54F claim amounting to Rs.22 lakhs for the sole reason that he had reinvested the capital gains in the name of his wife Smt. Malti. There is further no dispute that hon’ble jurisdictional high court in Kamal Kant Kamboj vs ITO [2017] 397 ITR 240 (P & H) has already settled the issue in the department’s favour and against the assessee while dealing with the pari materia provision under section 54B of the Act.

That being the case, I do not find any apparent illegality in the impugned section 54F disallowance made by both the lower appellate authorities. The fact however remains that the assessee prima facie appears to have been deprived of indexation benefit in computation of his capital gains. I thus deem appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh adjudication in very terms. It is further made clear that the assessee shall indeed be at liberty to raise all his legal and factual arguments once again in consequential proceedings, which shall be dealt with as per law.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.