STCG from Immovable Property Sale: ITAT Directs AO to Reassess alleged Sale with Additional Evidence [Read Order]
The appellate tribunal held that such non-consideration could lead to an incomplete assessment of facts. Therefore it directed the Assessing Officer to reassess after verification of the evidence and reconsideration of the issues in accordance with law.
![STCG from Immovable Property Sale: ITAT Directs AO to Reassess alleged Sale with Additional Evidence [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/03/04/2127840-stcg-from-immovable-property-salejpg.webp "STCG from Immovable Property Sale: ITAT Directs AO to Reassess alleged Sale with Additional Evidence [Read Order]")
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has remanded computation of short-term capital gains ( STCG ) from the sale of immovable property, directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to reassess the matter after considering additional evidence submitted by the assessee. As per Annual Information Return (AIR) available with the tax department, the assessee -...
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has remanded computation of short-term capital gains ( STCG ) from the sale of immovable property, directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to reassess the matter after considering additional evidence submitted by the assessee.
As per Annual Information Return (AIR) available with the tax department, the assessee - Ketankumar Thakorbhai Patel sold an immovable property for ₹37.33 lakh. Since the assessee had not filed a return of income for the relevant Assessment Year 2011-12, the department reopened the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In response, the assessee filed a return declaring income of ₹1.47 lakh, computing short-term capital gains at ₹2.19 lakh after considering the cost of acquisition and improvement.
However, the Assessing Officer recomputed the capital gains at ₹11.38 lakh, treating the difference of ₹9.19 lakh as undisclosed income and adding it to the taxable income.
The AO also disallowed a ₹75,000 deduction claimed under Section 80C due to lack of supporting receipts and further added ₹5.10 lakh as unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A.
On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the additions and rejected the additional evidence submitted by the assessee under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.
Before the ITAT, the assessee contended that the appellate authority had failed to properly consider these documents and submissions, which were crucial for determining the correct tax liability.
The bench of Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President ) and Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) observed that the CIT(A) had not considered the additional evidence which was necessary for proper adjudication of the issues relating to capital gains, deduction under Section 80C, and unexplained cash deposits.
The appellate tribunal held that such non-consideration could lead to an incomplete assessment of facts. Therefore it directed the Assessing Officer to reassess after verification of the evidence and reconsideration of the issues in accordance with law.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
