आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ (cid:586)ायपीठ, चे(cid:580)ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B SMC’ BENCH, CHENNAI (cid:373)ी एस.एस. िव(cid:695)ने(cid:361) रिव, (cid:586)ाियक सद(cid:735) के सम(cid:407)

Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1626/Chny/2025 िनधा(cid:330)रण वष(cid:330)/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Pradeep Jeyavelu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 2/697 Balaji Nagar Thiruyur Ward 1, Kuppam, Sevvapettai, Tiruvallur.

Tiruvallur 602 025.

[PAN:BBLPJ4017P]

(अपीलाथ(cid:334)/Appellant) ((cid:366)(cid:529)थ(cid:334)/Respondent)

अपीलाथ(cid:334) की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri R.S. Hithesh, Advocate (cid:366)(cid:529)थ(cid:334) की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 01.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2016-17.

2. The assessee raised 9 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of long term capital gain.

3. At the outset, it is noted that the assessee is an individual, filed return of income on 28.03.2023 declaring total income of ₹.13,91,143/- in response to the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. It is noticed that the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish details in support of the deduction claimed in the return of income. The assessee filed details as sought for, which is reflecting in page 3 of the assessment order. The case of the Assessing Officer is that the assessee has not declared income of assessee’s minor daughter on sale consideration received. The assessee explained that he himself and his daughter are the legal heirs of the property inherited through his spouse after her death. He accounted his share of 50% and claimed deduction under section 54 of the Act by filing valuation report given by the Chartered Engineer and registered valuer.

4. Regarding the share of assessee’s minor daughter, it was explained that in pursuance of court order dated 27.03.2015 deposited her share in nationalized bank, which is reflected in page 12 of the impugned order. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the assessee’s minor daughter’s share should be accounted in the hands of the assessee since transfer has taken place in terms of the provisions under Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer determined capital gains with reference to assessee’s minor daughter’s share at 50% by giving benefit under section 54 of the Act only with reference to assessee’s share. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the view of the Assessing Officer.

5. The ld. AR Shri R.S. Hithesh, Advocate submits that the ld. CIT(A) as well as Assessing Officer failed to understand that the assessee’s minor daughter’s sale consideration is curtailed to be utilized as per the directions of City Civil Court at Chennai. He argued that the minor daughter’s share cannot be treated as income until such sale consideration is free of constraints either in the hands of the assessee or in the hands of his minor daughter. He vehemently argued that 50% share of assessee’s minor daughter cannot be utilized for determination of capital gain nor investing in any assets to claim deduction from capital gain as it is deposited in a nationalized bank as per Court’s order. He submits that the said amount, which is deposited in the nationalized bank, cannot be used until his minor daughter attains majority and it should be free from all restraints to determine the same as income of the assessee. He argued that the authorities below failed to appreciate that the inability of the assessee in utilizing the share of his minor daughter in the sale proceeds and the said 50% share cannot be cl