Sunil Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
The assessee, an individual, filed an appeal before the ITAT Kolkata challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, dated 19.02.2024, for Assessment Year 2016-17 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal before the Tribunal was initially barred by 342 days, but the delay was condoned after the assessee demonstrated sufficient cause for the late filing.
The grounds of appeal included claims that the CIT(A) erred in calculating the assessed income, that the assessee had not concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars, and that no possession or sale of the property had occurred. The assessee contended that the assessed capital gains of ₹62,89,418 were arbitrary and not in accordance with the facts, since only ₹4,78,870 was disclosed in the return of income. The assessee argued that capital gains should only arise when possession of the constructed property is received and a subsequent transfer occurs.
The case facts indicate that the assessee filed a return disclosing income from house property of ₹3,67,610. The Income Tax Officer reopened the assessment based on information from the Registrar of Properties, Patna, under Section 133(6) of the Act, regarding a registered Joint Development Agreement (“JDA”) with M/s Sri Ravi Homes Pvt. Ltd. The agreement entitled the assessee to a share in the constructed area in exchange for land rights. The AO computed long-term capital gains of ₹62,89,418 under Section 144 of the Act, which the CIT(A) upheld.
