Santosh Kumar Suri Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court)
In Santosh Kumar Suri vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court), the petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 seeking directions to the Income-Tax Department to give effect to the order dated 20 January 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The background facts are as follows: the petitioner filed his return for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 declaring income of ₹ 33,64,160. The case was scrutinised under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and an assessment order was passed on 25 December 2025 (likely a typo; presumably 2025 is meant as 2023 or earlier). A tax demand of ₹ 36,85,243 was deposited by the petitioner. In appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), on 5 December 2019 the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the indexed cost of acquisition and cost of improvement for inherited property and purchased portion and compute capital gains under Section 54 of the Act. The AO and Department appealed further and the ITAT, by its order dated 20 January 2023, allowed the ground of indexation of cost of acquisition for inherited asset, following precedent that indexation should relate to the year the previous owner first held the asset and not the year in which the current owner became owner. Accordingly, the AO was directed to allow cost of indexation in line with that principle. The AO was required under Section 153(3) of the Act to conduct a fresh assessment within nine months from the ITAT order, but no action was taken despite reminders from the petitioner. The petitioner filed the writ petition on 19 September 2025. After filing, on 14 October 2025, the AO passed a fresh computation order: ₹ 36,85,243 to be paid to the petitioner and credit tax paid after assessment allowed; the index cost of acquisition was computed with reference to the year in which the previous owner first held the asset. The petitioner contended entitlement to interest under Section 244(1A) at 3% for delay. The Department’s counsel indicated lack of instructions and no awareness of the AO’s order. The Court noted the inaction of the Department after the ITAT order in January 2023. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the amount due along with interest under Section 244(1A) and directed the Department to credit ₹ 36,85,243 plus interest within one week. It further ordered that if the amount is not credited, the responsible official must appear in Court on the next date. The petition was listed for 15 December 2025; the writ petition is disposed in these terms.
