Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Cosmo Films Esop 2015 Trust,Delhi vs Income Tax Officer Ward 34(5), Civic ... on 17 March, 2026
ITA No.6754/Del/2025
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH "B"NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRISANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आ.अ.स/ं .I.T.A No.6754/Del/2025
िनधारणवष/Assessment Year: 2021-22
COSMO FILMS ESOP 2015 TRUST, बनाम INCOME TAX OFFICER,
1004-10 DLF Tower-A, Vs. Ward 34(5Z), Civic Centre,
Zakir Nagar, Delhi 110025. Delhi.
PAN No.AABTC8560A
अपीलाथ Appellant यथ /Respondent
Assessee by Shri Neeraj Sharma, CA &Shri Rachit Aggarwal, CA
Revenue by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
सुनवाईक तारीख/ Date of hearing: 17.03.2026
उ ोषणाक तारीख/Pronouncement on 17.03.2026
आदेश /O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
1. The present appeal arises from order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as "the Act"), dated 12.08.2025 by Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals)-2, Hyderabad. This is a case where the assessee is an ESOP Trust which is engaged in investment activities for the benefit of the employees' of M/s Cosmo Films Limited. During the course of processing u/s 141(1) of the Act the Ld. AO-CPC raised a demand of Rs.28,13,660/- by working out some Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG). The Ld. AO is seen to have not considered the indexed cost of acquisition. 1 ITA No.6754/Del/2025 1.1 The assessee approached the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), where also he could not succeed on the basis of a finding given in pages 6 to 8, where it has been pointed out that various relevant columns in the ITR Form, through which the indexed cost could be worked out, were not filled up by the assessee.
1.2 Further aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds: -
"The Appellant prefers the present appeal on the below mentioned grounds which are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another:
1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ["Ld. CIT(A)"] has erred in upholding the additions made in the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 16 November 2022, passed by the Assistant Director of Income-tax, CPC, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "the Ld. AO"), without duly appreciating the bona-fide facts and circumstances of the case and the explanations furnished by the Assessee.
2. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not granting due relief to the Assessee in respect of the computation of Long-Term Capital Gains of Rs.1,10,14,809, by failing to direct the Ld. AO to consider the indexed cost of acquisition for the purpose of determining the long term capital gains in accordance with law.
3. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in computing the Long-Term Capital Gains by adopting the cost of acquisition instead of the indexed cost of acquisition, thereby denying the statutory benefit of indexation to the Assessee as envisaged under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The Appellant craves leave to add/ alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, any or all of the foregoing grounds of appeal at or before the hearing, and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing."
2 ITA No.6754/Del/2025
2. Before us the Ld. AR argued with the help of a paper book and written submissions. It has been stated and demonstrated through various pages in the paper book that the return form on the Income Tax portal contained some kind of inconsistency due to which figures in one column, which are supposed to be picked up automatically for other relevant columns, was not done. Thus, even though the assessee had filled up the indexed cost of the acquisition, the other figures were not picked up automatically for the purposes of computing the LTCG. The Ld. AR pointed out various places in the ITR proforma where some figure value had to be populated from another field but the same was not done. It was argued that such internal glitches should not deny the assessee the benefit of indexation for the purposes of computing LTCG. 2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
3. We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the documents before us including the facsimile of the ITR proforma placed on record by the assessee. Even a cursory glance at the same reveals that some figures that should have been picked up automatically have not been done so.This has led to anabnormality in terms of computing the LTCG. In light of these documents and the averments of Ld. AR, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for computing the LTCG as per law, after giving the benefit of indexation. The Ld. AO would 3 ITA No.6754/Del/2025 carefully examine the computation filed by the assessee and thereafter arrive at a legally correct figure of LTCG.
4. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.03.2026 Sd/- Sd/-
(CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (SANJAY AWASTHI)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 25.03.2026
*Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S.
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT, NEW DELHI
4