IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :: NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year : 2011-12)

Smt. Rajani Surendra ITO, Ward-4(4), Nagpur Adamane, Plot No.30, Near Ghodke School Surendra Vs.

Nagar, Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur-440024.

PAN: ALAPA 9897 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Present for:

Assessee by : Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Ld. Adv.

Revenue by : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R.

Date of Hearing : 27.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025

O R D E R

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 04/08/2020 impugned herein passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nagpur (in short, ‘Ld. Commissioner’) u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) for the A.Y. 2011-12.

2. In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO) in the scrutiny assessment observed that the Assessee had sold one residential property vide sale deed dated 15/03/2011 for a consideration of Rs. 48 Lac, as against stamp duty valuation of Rs. 53,52,000/- but not reflected the capital gain earned, in the income tax return and therefore, the Ld. AO by issuing show-cause notice asked the Assessee “as to why no income from long term capital gain on the sale of above property has not been reflected in the return of income”

3. The Assessee before the Ld. AO replied that consideration amount received on account of that property has been reinvested in purchase of new asset and hence, no capital gain was reflected in the return. The Assessee also filed a fresh computation of income tax and copy of sale deed dated 17/09/2012 which shows a sum of Rs. 15,35,000/- has been reinvested in purchase of the said property. The Assessee further claimed that she has reinvested the amount of Rs. 15,35,000/- in the purchase of plot with an intention to construct a house and balance amount has been utilized in the construction of second floor of existing house owned by her husband.

4. The Ld. AO though considered the aforesaid claim of the Assessee, however, not accepted the same in view of the provisions of section 54(2) and observed that the Assessee has not deposited the amount of unutilized in the capital gain in scheme till the date of filing of return and therefore, he is of the view that amount so utilized is taxable in the hands of the Assessee as ‘income from long term capital gain’.

The Ld. AO, ultimately, by considering the sale consideration of the property at Rs. 53,52,000/- as per stamp duty valuation in view of section 50C of the Act and while deducting the indexed cost of acquisition of plot to the tune of Rs. 1,33,284/- and other expenses claimed to the tune of Rs. 2,67,863/- by the Assessee, ultimately determined long term capital gain of Rs. 49,69,430/- and consequently made the addition of such amount by disallowing the claim of LTCG.

5. The Ld. Commissioner, in appeal, granted the relief to the extent of 50% of Rs. 16,35,260/- being cost of new property by following the decision of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Niharika M. Jhangiani vs. Addl. CIT in MA No. 349/MUM/2017 (arising out of ITA No.7208/MUM/2011), whereby the property was purchased in the joint ownership and the Ld. Commissioner restricted the exemption claimed u/sec. 54F of the Act to the extent of 50% of the total investment and the Tribunal affirmed the order of Ld. Commissioner.

6. Whereas, the Assessee has argued that in the present case, the Assessee has paid entire consideration amount of Rs. 16,35,260/- in purchasing new property as appears from the copy of sale deed, copy of bank statement etc. and, therefore, the Assessee is entitled to get the benefit of complete amount of Rs.

16,35,260/-.

7. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and is of the considered view that simple mentioning of name in the sale deed cannot determine the percentage of ownership in the property, as the same can be established by producing the evidence for the amount i