MAHESH DALODRA,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

That the aforesaid assessment order bears No.

ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2020-21/103089577(1) & that the same

is dated 23.02.2021 which is herein after referred to as the

“Impugned Assessment Order”

2.2 That the assessee filed the return of income originally

for the assessment year 2018-19 on 30.08.2018 admitting

an income of Rs. 61,74,960/-. Subsequently the assessee

filed revised return of Income on 01.09.2018 admitting an

income of Rs. 5, 86,260/-. The revised return of income

was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1)

Page 2 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

were issued and the assessee furnished the information

called for.

2.3 That during the year assessee sold a property for a

consideration of Rs. 1,59,78,002/-and after deducting the

cost of acquisition at Rs. 1,02,80,314/- arrived at the Long

Term Capital Gains of Rs. 56,97,688/-. In the original

return of income, assessee offered the Long Term Capital

gains to tax. However, in the revised return of income, the

assessee claimed the same as deduction u/s.54 of the IT

Act. When the assessee was asked to substantiate the

deduction claimed u/s.54 in the revised return, the assessee

stated that the deduction was claimed in the revised return

after finding that the same was not claimed in the original

return due to clerical error. In the Impugned Assessment

Order following is recorded which we reproduce as below:-

(a) “Coming to the facts, the assessee sold immovable

property viz., land on 18-12-2017 and received an

amount of Rs.1,59,78,002/-, The said land was

purchased by him during the financial year 2015-16

Page 3 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

for a consideration of Rs.96,00,000/- and the

indexed cost of acquisition of the same worked out to

Rs. 1,02,80,314/- and the resultant capital gains

Rs.56,97,688/-. worked out to Against this, the

assessee claimed deduction u/s.54 claiming that he

has purchased a plot on 31-07-2017 for a

consideration of Rs.52,45,600/- and also stating vide

reply dated 31-01-21 that he constructed a house of

approximate 750 sq. ft. on it and the payment of Rs.

5,75,000 is made to the contractor. Though he

stated that the copy of construction agreement is

attached herewith, but no such agreement was

furnished by the assessee.”

(b) “The information furnished by the assessee is

carefully considered. In order to avail the benefits of

deduction u/s 54, the long term capital asset sold

should be a residential house whereas the asset sold

by the assessee is land. Further, in order to avail the

deduction u/s.54, assessee should within a period of

one year before or two years after the date on which

Page 4 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

the transfer took place purchased, or has within a

period of three years after that date constructed, one

residential house in India. However, in this case, the

new asset purchased is land and though the assessee

claimed that he has constructed a house of

approximate 750 S.Ft and made a payment of

Rs.5,75,000/-, no evidence regarding the

construction viz., approval from revenue authorities

for construction, plan, proof of payment, alleged

construction agreement etc, were furnished to

substantiate his claim. Also, it is seen from the

property purchased that the same was purchased

jointly with one Sri/Ms.Madhu Dalora whereas the

capital asset sold by him was not held jointly. It is

also pertinent to mention that the assessee admitted

Long Term Capital gains in the original return and

also paid advance tax and self-assessment tax and

subsequently claimed deduction u/s.54 and

consequent refund of the taxes paid in the revised

return.”

Page 5 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

(c) “A show cause notice dated 12-02-21 was issued

proposing the above disallowance and in reply letter

dated 23-2-21 assessee while agreeing that the

property purchased was in joint names, stated that

he has constructed a 750 S.Ft. house on the said plot

and enclosed a copy of agreement stated to be

entered on 07.01.2018. However, as discussed in

detail in the foregoing paragraphs, the assessee is not

eligible for the deduction u/s.54 claimed as he has

not furnished any corrobatratory evidence regarding

the construction viz., approval from revenue

authorities for construction, plan, proof of payment

to the contractor etc. and the property was not

purchased in his name but jointly.”

In view of the above, it is held that the assessee is not

eligible for the deduction claimed u/s.54 and the same is

rejected.”

Page 6 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

2.4 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid

“Impugned Assessment Order” prefers the first appeal

u/s 246A of the act before the Ld. CIT (A) who by the

“Impugned Order” has dismissed the first appeal of the

assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein. The

core grounds and reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal

was as under:-

“A mere perusal of this only piece of evidence submitted by the appellant indicates that the same is an agreement merely made on simple plain paper and is it totally devoid of specifics and supporting/corroborating details and evidences. In other words, this sole piece of evidence in itself cannot be considered sufficient to establish the claim of the appellant w.r.t. construction of house by making payment of Rs.575000/-. Leave aside other details or any third party and independent evidence, the appellant has not even specified nor submitted any evidences w.r.t. any particulars of the stated payments of Rs.575000/-. In this backdrop, it is mentioned that there is full force in the observations of the Ld. AO i.e. the assessee had failed to furnish any evidence regarding the construction, viz., approval from revenue authorities for construction, plan, proof of payment, alleged construction agreement etc. to substantiate his clalm. Needless to mention that such claim of the appellant is purely evidence-based claim and ought to have been substantiated and established by submission of the relevant details as well as supporting evidences. In his submission made during the present appellate proceedings though the appellant has submitted that the Ld. AO never demanded the proof of payments, plan, sanction letter, etc during the assessment proceedings and without asking for the same he has assumed and disallowed the exemption claimed but the fact remains that in the present appellate proceedings also the appellant has not submitted such details even though as per the statule the primary onus is on the person making claim of exemption/deduction

Page 7 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

to substantiate such claim by submitting all relevant details dully supported by cogent and tangible evidences. However, the fact remains that the appellant had squarely failed to discharge this onus at the time of subject assessment proceedings and the position also DID NOT improve during the present appellate proceedings. In addition to this, it is also noted that the Ld. AO has clearly recorded in the impugned order that the exemption u/s 54 is applicable in those cases in which the Long Term Capital Asset [original asset] which has been transferred is residential house and that in the present case it is land. Inspite of such categorical recording by the Ld. AO in the impugned order, the submission of the appellant made during the course of present appellate proceedings is totally silent on this issue.

In view of the above it is clear that during the course of the assessment proceedings as well as the present appellate proceedings the appellant has squarely failed to substantiate his claim of having constructed a house in terms of provisions of section 54 on the said plot of land which is sine-qua-non for the considering his eligibility w.r.t. claim of exemption u/s 54 and his submission is also silent on the primary issue i.e. exemption u/s 54 is available only in respect of transfer of original asset i.e. residential house and not on plot of land, hence, no interference is called for in the impugned order and there is now no further need to examine other reasons mentioned by the Ld. AO while denying the claim of exemption u/s 54 vide the impugned order.

Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the conclusion of the Ld. AO in this regard. Accordingly all such contentions of the appellant fail and resultantly, the corresponding ground does NOT succeed and is thus DISMISSED.

2.5 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned

Order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this

tribunal and has raised the following grounds of appeal in

Page 8 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

the form no. 36 against the “Impugned Order” which are as

under:-

“1. Rejection of exemption u/s 54 and Addition of income by Rs. 56,97,688 by rejection of exemption is unjustified, illegal and bad in law.”

3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this tribunal

on 06.04.2026 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of the

assessee appeared before us and interalia contended that the

“Impugned Order” is bad in law, illegal and not proper. It

therefore deserves to be set aside. The Ld. AR has placed on

the record of this tribunal a written submission dated

11.11.2025 which is reproduced by us as below:-

Page 9 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

Page 10 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

Page 11 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

3.2 The Ld. AR has also placed on the record of this tribunal

a submission dated 10.02.2026 whereby copy of Nagar

Nigam [Municipal Corporation] property tax receipt and copy

of electricity bill pertaining to the relevant residential

premises are enclosed.

3.3 In addition to above two documents (supra) the Ld. AR

has placed on the record of this tribunal an additional

submission enclosing a letter dated 12.03.2026 issued by

Page 12 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

Shri Gopal Vyas Asst. Revenue inspector, Zone-22, Ward

No.- 36, Indore Municipal Corporation and so also the

assessee letter dated 18.02.2026.

3.4 Basis above documents it was contended by the Ld. AR

that the assessee had sold a long term capital asset on

18.12.2017 i.e. immovable property vis land for Rs.

1,59,78,002/-. The said land was purchased by him during

the financial year 2015-16 for a consideration of Rs.

96,00,000/- and indexed cost of acquisition of the same

worked out to Rs. 1,02,80,314/- and the resultant capital

gain worked out to Rs. 56,97,688/- against this, the

assessee claimed deduction u/s 54 of the act claiming that

he has purchased a plot on 31.07.2017 for a consideration of

Rs. 52,45,600/- and had constructed a house of

approximately 750 sq. feet on it and that payment of Rs.

5,75,000/- was made to the contractor for the said purpose.

Our attention was then invited to page 31 of submissions

dated 10.02.2026 which is a copy of agreement dated

07.01.2018 between the assessee and the contractor

whereby in the recital it is stated that owner is willing to

Page 13 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

construct a small house of 750 sq. feet on the plot of land

situated at plot no.-96, “Pinnacle D Grande” village

Nipania, Teh. and District Indore MP and that the

contractor has agreed to construct the said works for Rs.

5,75,000/-. Other details are provided in the said agreement.

The said agreement is a two pager document at pages 31 to

sum of Rs. 5 Lakh was debited on 02.07.2018 from the

assesse bank A/c in favour of “Jagdish Ajmera” the

contractor. The Ld. AR then spoke about the original ITR and

the revised ITR. It was stated that since refund arose due to

revised return the matter was taken up for the scrutiny

assessment. The Ld. AO in the “Impugned Assessment

Order” has stated that no agreement between the assessee

and contractor is placed on record by the asseseee. It is also

recorded in the “Impugned Assessment Order” that in order

to avail the benefit of deduction u/s 54, the long term capital

asset sold should be a residential house whereas the asset

sold by the assessee is a land. However now, the agreement

between the assessee and the contractor is placed on record

Page 14 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

and so also payment of Rs. 5 Lakh to the contractor (supra).

The Ld. AR has placed reliance on copy of Nagar Nigam

Property Tax receipt dated 01.01.2018 in support of his

contention that a house was constructed on the land

purchased and so also electricity bill dated 06.11.2018

[page 34&35]. It was prayed that the Impugned Order should

be set aside. Per contra Ld. DR for and the Revenue stated

that the agreement between the owner and the contractor for

the construction of the house is dated 07.01.2018 basis page

exercise in law. House/ construction should complete. The

Ld. DR for the Revenue emphasised that there is no material

on the record that the site in issue was cleared for and that

all the plans are all cleared by competent authorities. No

building house approvals and plans [drawings and sketches]

are on record of the competent authorities duly approved. No

completion certificate is too on the record of the competent

authorities. Our attention was then invited to page 34 which

is a copy of the electricity bill dated 06.11.2018 from the

reading of the same it was pointed out that the electricity

Page 15 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

connection was provided for purpose of only the

“construction of house” and that the electricity bill is not

for domestic electric connection for use as light, fans etc.

It is common fact that during the construction phase the

temporary electric connections are provided by the electric

company’s. The domestic consumption of electricity for a

house therefore cannot be inferred basis electric bill page

34 as same is for the purpose of the construction of the

house. Further no water bill, garbage bill etc. in respect of

house are on the records. Basis page 20 [registry], it was

emphasised that the land measures 5590 sq. ft. i.e. plot

no.-96, “Pinnacle D Grande” colony. The Ld. DR then placed

the reliance on the Judgement of the Hon’ble P&H High

Court in case of Ashok Syal v/s CIT, CC Jalandhar reported

in (2012) 24 Taxmann.com 274 (P & H) and laid emphasis on

Para 8 & 9. Reliance was also placed on the Judgement of

the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sandeep Hooda v/s

PCIT reported in (2024) 169 Taxmann.com 20 (Delhi) and

laid emphasis on Para 18. It was then submitted that the

factum of the investment is only the transfer of money

Page 16 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

to the contractor and that there is no iota of evidence

for a house. There is absolutely nothing before the Ld. CIT

(A) and the Ld. AO in respect of house. Electricity bill is too

temporary one as pointed out earlier. There is a very strong

doubt whether the assessee is living or not at this stage of

the argument during the course of the hearing. The Ld. AR

for the assessee at this stage promptly rebutted that the

house/ residential building is in habitable state by the

assessee. The Ld. DR then promptly answered what is the

proof that the assessee is living in a habitable house and

what is the material on record. The only material which is on

record is agreement between the owner and the contractor to

construct a house and payment of Rs. 5 lakh through

banking channel, though the assessee has claimed the

amount of Rs. 5.75 Lakh expended on house construction. A

little later the Ld. DR finally prayed that the “Impugned

Order” be upheld and/or in the alternative the matter

should be remanded back to the file of the Ld. AO for a

through ‘inquiry’ and the ‘due verification’ basis documents

so filed before this tribunal with full and complete liberty to

Page 17 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

the Ld. AO to make a further and detailed inquiry on the

entire subject matter. The Ld. AR then promptly re-joined

and submitted that he has no objection if matter is

remanded back to the Ld. AO for inquiry and due verification

as suggested by the Ld. DR . Hearing was then concluded

and closed.

4.1 We have to decide the legality, validity and proprietary of the

“impugned order” basis records of the case & the rival

submission canvassed before us.

4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case and have

heard the submissions.

4.3 We basis records of the case and after hearing and upon

examining the rival contentions of the Ld. AR and the Ld. DR

canvassed before us, are of the considered opinion that in

the “Impugned Assessment Order” the Ld. AO initially has

held that the new asset purchased is land, though the

assessee has claimed that he has constructed a house of

Page 18 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

approximately 750 sq. feet on it and made a payment of Rs.

5,75,000/- however there is no evidence regarding the

construction of house viz the approval from the Revenue

authorities for the construction, plan, proof of payments, the

alleged construction agreement etc. were furnished to

substantiate the claim.

4.4 We further observe that in the “Impugned Assessment

Order” it is further observed & held by the Ld. AO that in

response to the show cause notice dated 10.02.2021 wherein

the assessee was put to notice & was called upon to show

cause as to why the disallowance should not be made

against him the assessee vide reply dated 23.02.2021 has

stated amongst others that he has constructed a 750 square

feet house on the said plot. The assessee is not eligible for

the deduction u/s 54 claimed as no corroborative evidence

regarding the construction of house viz approval from the

revenue authorities for the construction of the house, plans,

proof of payment to the contractor etc are on record as the

same is not filed in support of claim. Finally in the

“Impugned Assessment Order” the claim u/s 54 is rejected.

Page 19 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

4.5 In view of above observation of the Ld. AO in the

“Impugned Assessment Order” we are of the considered

opinion that for a claim u/s 54 of the Act the burden for

proof/onus of proof is on the assessee & the Ld. AO at the

original stage of the assessment has rightly held as above as

no material evidence was before him in support of

construction of a house of 750 sq. feet.

4.6 Before the Ld. CIT(A) in the form No. 35 reference &

reliance is placed on the construction agreement dated

07.01.2018 which is reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) in the

impugned order on the internal page 7 & 8 which is a

agreement between the owner [Assessee] & contractor for a

construction of a house.

4.7 We also observe that the assessee during the course of

the first appellate proceedings internal page 3 of the

impugned order made ‘e’ submissions on 17.08.2023 where

in, it is pleaded that the Ld. AO has not verified the

documents of purchase of Plot [Plot No. 96 pinnacle city] &

the construction of small house on the said plot. It is also

avered that the Ld. AO has never demanded that proof

Page 20 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

payments, Plan, sanction letter etc during the course of the

assessment proceedings & even without asking for the same

the Ld. AO has disallowed deduction u/s 54 of the Act,

which is very unfortunate & illegal. The copy of the registry

dated 02.08.2017 copy of construction agreement dated

07.01.2018 were only enclosed before the Ld. CIT (A).

Therefore only the two documents i.e. the copy of registry

dated 02.08.2017 & copy of construction agreement dated

07.01.2018 were before the Ld. CIT (A). [Internal page 3 of

CIT(A) order & para 2.4(supra)]

4.8 We observe that apart from above two documents the Ld.

CIT (A) on page 4 of the “Impugned Order” has observed

that the assessee had not submitted other documents

meaning there by the approvals from the revenue authorities,

for the construction of a house, plans, sanction letter, proof

of payment to the contractor etc were not filed & submitted

before the first appellate authority despite averment in this

regard [Para 4.7 supra]. It is also observed by the Ld. CIT(A)

in the “Impugned Order” that a latest opportunity was too

afforded to the assessee vide communication dated

Page 21 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

12.12.2024 to which also the assessee did not submitted any

response & No adjournment request was made consequently

the Ld. CIT(A) drew an inference that save except the two

documents i.e. copy of registry dated 02.08.2017 & copy of

construction agreement dated 07.01.2018. No other

documents are being relied upon by the assessee.

4.9 We observe basis internal page 6,7,8 & 9 of the

“Impugned Order” the Ld. CIT(A) has held as follows:-

“Thus, it is evident that the Ld. AO has denied the claim of exemption u/s 54 on multiple counts, but the foremost moot point to be considered is whether the appellant has substantiated his claim w.r.t. construction of a house by making payment of Rs.575000/-. This is explained as under: There is no dispute that the matter relates to the claim of exemption of Rs.5697688/-u/s 54 of the Act and the extract of relevant provisions of the said section are as reproduced below: 54. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset [***], being buildings or lands appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head “Income from house property” (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, a residential house, then, instead of the capital gain being charged to income-tax as income of the previous year in which the transfer took place, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,— xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thus, the above provisions unambiguously make it clear that the exemption u/s 54 would be available only in case the corresponding

Page 22 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

investment is made in purchase/construction of house, subject to other

conditions.

There is also no dispute on the fact that major part of this exemption

claimed at Rs.5697688/- pertains to the purchase cost of land i.e.

Rs.5122688/- [Rs.5697688/-(-)Rs.575000/-] as the same is directly

forthcoming from the appellant's own submission that he had

constructed a house on said plot of land of around 750 sq. ft. by making

payment of Rs.575000/-

In other words, the entire claim of exemption claimed u/s 54 of the Act

of Rs.5697688/-solely, wholly and necessarily hinges on the

submission of the appellant that he had constructed a house on the

said plot of land by making payment of Rs.575000/- and hence it is

imperative to examine and ascertain if the assessee-appellant has been

able to substantiate such claim.

In this respect, to support such claim, during the course of the present

appellate proceedings the appellant has submitted copy of agreement,

the relevant extract of which is as reproduced below:

Page 23 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

Page 24 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

Page 25 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

A mere perusal of this only plece of evidence submitted by the appellant indicates that the same is an agreement merely made on simple plain paper and is it totally devoid of specifics and supporting/corroborating details and evidences. In other words, this sole piece of evidence in itself cannot be considered sufficient to establish the claim of the appellant w.r.t. construction of house by making payment of Rs.575000/-, Leave aside other details or any third party and independent evidence, the appellant has not even specified nor submitted any evidences w.r.t. any particulars of the stated payments of Rs.575000/-, In this backdrop. it is mentioned that there is full force in the observations of the Ld. AO Le. the assessee had failed to furnish any evidence regarding the construction viz., approval from revenue authorities for construction, plan, proof of payment, alleged construction agreement etc. to substantiate his claim. Needless to mention that such claim of the appellant is purely evidence-based claim and ought to have been substantiated and established by submission of the relevant details as well as supporting evidences. In his submission made during the present appellate proceedings though the appellant has submitted that the Ld. AO never demanded the proof of payments, plan, sanction letter, etc during the assessment proceedings and without asking for the same he has assumed and disallowed the exemption claimed but the fact remains that in the present appellate proceedings also the appellant has not submitted such details even though as per the statute the primary onus is on the person making claim of exemption/deduction to substantiate such claim by submitting all relevant details dully supported by cogent and tangible evidences. However, the fact remains that the appellant had squarely failed to discharge this onus at the time of subject assessment proceedings and the position also DID NOT improve during the present appellate proceedings. In addition to this, it is also noted that the Ld. AO has clearly recorded in the impugned order that the exemption u/s 54 is applicable in those cases in which the Long Term Capital Asset [original asset] which has been transferred is residential house and that in the present case it is land. Inspite of such categorical recording by the Ld. AO in the impugned order, the submission of the appellant made during the course of present appellate proceedings is totally silent on this issue. In view of the above it is clear that during the course of the assessment proceedings as well as the present appellate proceedings the appellant has squarely failed to substantiate his claim of having constructed a house in terms of provisions of section 54 on the said plot of land which is sine-qua-non for the

Page 26 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

considering his eligibility w.r.t. claim of exemption u/s 54 and his submission is also silent on the primary issue l.e. exemption u/s 54 is available only in respect of transfer of original asset i.e. residential house and not on plot of land, hence, no interference is called for in the impugned order and there is now no further need to examine other reasons mentioned by the Ld. AO while denying the claim of exemption u/s 54 vide the impugned order. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the conclusion of the Ld. AO in this regard. Accordingly all such contentions of the appellant fail and resultantly, the corresponding ground does NOT succeed and is thus DISMISSED. 6. In the result, the present appeal is DISMISSED.”

We find No infirmity in the “Impugned Order”. However

now at page 34 a electricity bill dated 06.11.2018 is

produced before us which too has been strongly assailed by

the Ld. DR during the hearing as is recorded above i.e. for

the purpose of construction of house and not for domestic

use. This document is contrary to the submission of Ld. AR

during the hearing that house is a habitable one. Regular

electricity bills are not produced for the domestic use i.e.

lights & fan etc. as corroborative evidences. Another

document at page 35 is municipal tax receipt dated

01.01.2018 which was not in the existence at the original

stage as well as at the first appellate stage [& so also

electricity bill dated 06.11.2018]. Yet another piece of

evidence is letter dated 12.03.2026 of Shri Gopal Vyas Asst.

Page 27 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

Revenue inspector IMC Zone 22, ward – 18 stating that in

respect of Plot no 96 there is house/building of 750 sq. feet

in respect of which house tax for year 2018-19 is levied. We

also observe that on page 33 there is a bank statement of the

assessee were in it is claimed that on 02.07.2018 a debit of

Rs. 5 lakh is seen in favour of Jagdish Ajmera the contractor

who has been claimed as person who has constructed the

house admeasuring 750 sq. feet on the said plot no. 96

pinnacle city as a contractor.

4.10 We observe thus that the so called municipal tax receipt

dated 01.01.2018, electricity bill dated 06.11.2018, bank

statement from 15.2.18 to 5.7.18 of Assessee bearing A/c NO.

50100073560263, customer id no. 2374529 [P 33] are new &

additional evidences which were not before the Ld. AO at the

time of the original adjudication. Further we observe that for

the house admeasuring 750 sq. feet the plans, sanction letter

of competent authorities like IMC are not placed on record

despite making a grievance of same by the assessee as

recorded in the “Impugned Order” [para 4.7 & 2.4 (supra]

under these circumstances & facts we at the end of the

Page 28 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

hearing saw both the Ld. AR & the Ld. DR [In alternative

submission] were at least ad idem on the issue of remand

back to the file of the Ld. AO for De novo adjudication.

4.11 In the premises drawn by us we are of the considered

opinion that the “Impugned Order” deserves to be set aside

& matter should be remanded back to the file of the Ld. AO

on denovo basis so that he can pass a fresh order on merits

of the case. Accordingly we set aside the “Impugned Order”

as & by way of remand back to the file of the Ld. AO with a

direction to place before the Ld. AO the following documents

for due inquiry & due verification of the same which are

enumerated as under:-

(1) Copy of electricity bills

(2) Copy of Municipal tax receipts

(3) Copy of bank statement of assessee.

(4) Approved & sanctioned plans, Sanction letter of

Municipal authorities in respect of house admeasuring 750

sq. feet (supra).

(5) All other papers & documents showing that house is

habitable one.

Page 29 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

Note: - Above list is only illustrative and not exhaustive.

4.12 The assessee is directed to attend hearings as & when

fixed & to file reply & to furnish such details as may be

sought by the Ld. AO for purpose of due inquiry & due

verification so that correct income of the assessee is

computed & assessed as per law. The Ld. AO is directed to

pass a speaking & well-reasoned order basis merits of the

case.

5 Order

5.1 In the result-the Impugned order is set Aside as and by way

of remand back to the file of the Ld. AO with directions as

aforesaid.

5.2. The Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical Purpose. Pronounced in open court on 17.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

(BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Indore Dated : 17/04/2026 Patel/Sr. PS

Page 30 of 31

Mahesh Dalodra ITA No. 322/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19

Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 31 of 31