Poonam Raghav Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
The ITAT Delhi dismissed the assessee’s appeal against the order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2016-17. The dispute concerned an addition of Rs.8,50,000 as Long Term Capital Gain and the assessee’s claim of deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee had not claimed the relevant capital gain deduction in the original return of income but claimed deduction under Section 54 for the first time in the return filed in response to notice under Section 148. During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the receipt of Rs.8,50,000 from Sh. Rahul Arora related to the sale of a house property in Faridabad and had been utilised for purchasing new properties with the Omaxe Group. The assessee therefore requested that the sale consideration be enhanced to Rs.31,00,000 and deduction under Section 54 be allowed.
The CIT(A) rejected the submission, observing that the capital gains had not been correctly calculated in the original return and that the same could not be granted in the return filed under Section 148. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was accordingly confirmed.
Before the ITAT, the assessee relied on the decisions in Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai V Armine Hamied Khan (ITA No.834/Mum/2022) and Shri B.M. Labroo V DCIT, Circle 24(1) (ITA No.2756/Del/2011), stating that the addition had been deleted in those cases. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee, while the Departmental Representative relied on the findings of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal considered the findings of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A), along with the assessee’s written submissions. It noted that the assessee had made the Section 54 deduction claim for the first time in the return filed in response to notice under Section 148. The Tribunal held that the fresh claim made in such return could not be considered. It further found that the CIT(A) had passed a detailed and speaking order and that its findings required no interference.
Accordingly, the ITAT dismissed the assessee’s appeal and sustained the impugned addition.
Cases Discussed
- Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai V Armine Hamied Khan (ITAT Mumbai), ITA No.834/Mum/2022
- Shri B.M. Labroo V DCIT, Circle 24(1), D-1/54, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi (ITAT Delhi), ITA No.2756/Del/2011
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for the A.Y. 2016-17. Grounds of appeal are as under :-
“1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer by sustaining the addition of Rs.8,50,000/- as Long Term Capital Gain only on the grounds:
1.1 That the appellant has not correctly calculated the capital gains in the return of income the same cannot be granted in the return filed under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).
1.2 The claim of the assessee during the reassessment proceedings is a fresh claim and the same is not allowable in the absence of claim deduction under section 54 of the Act.
1.3 The very same issue has been decided in the following case laws and the addition made has deleted:
-
- Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai V Armine Hamied Khan, 02, Nisarg, Off Nargis Dutt Road, Bandra West, Mumbai 400 050 [PAN: AAOPK4115A) (ITA No.834/Mum/2022)
- Shri B.M. Labroo V DCIT, Circle 24(1), D-1/54, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi (ITA No.2756/Del/2011)
2. The only issue involved in this case is that assessee claimed long term capital gains for the first time in return filed u/s.148 of the Act while the assessee had not claimed it in the original return of income filed. The ld. CIT(A) has given a very clear and categorical findings on this issue which is reproduced as under :-
“During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted that the receipt of Rs. 8,50,000/- from Sh. Rahul Arora also pertains to the sale of house property in Faridabad and has been utilized for the purchase of new properties with the Omaxe Group and hence the assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 54 of the Act. The appellant has requested to enhance the sale consideration to Rs. 31,00,000/- and allow deduction u/s 54 of the Act. The submissions of the appellant have been perused but not found to be convincing. Since the appellant has not correctly calculated the capital gains in the original return of income the same cannot be granted in the return filed u/s 148 of the Act. The impugned addition made by the Ld. AO is hereby confirmed.”
3. While no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the findings of the authorities below.
4. We have considered the findings given by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and we have also considered the written submissions filed by the assessee. We find that in this case the assessee has claimed deduction u/s.54 of the Act in the return of income filed in response to the notice u/s.148 of the IT Act. The assessee is making a fresh claim during the course of assessment proceedings as the AO cannot consider the fresh claim of the assessee made in the return filed in response of notice u/s.147 of the Act. Therefore, the assessee’s fresh claim in the return of income filed in response to Section 148 of the Act cannot be considered.
5. As the Ld. CIT(A) has given very detailed and speaking order on this issue, therefore, we are of this considered view that the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue needs no interference.
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is dismissed.
Order pronounced in open Court on 10 July, 2026.
