GIRISH KUMAR SAINI,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), DEHRADUN

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN CIRCUIT BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.257/DDN/2026 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2022-23) Girish Kumar Saini, Income Tax Officer, 46B, Pathri Bagh, Kanwali B.O., Ward-1(1)(1), Haripuram, Dehradun, Vs. Dehradun. Uttarakhand.248001. PAN-BHBPS1805G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Rajiv Sahni, CA Department by Shri Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement 28/07/2026 O R D ER PER BENCH: This appeal by assessee is arising out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] in Appeal No. NFAC/2021-22/10391433 dated 17.02.2026 for Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. In this case, it is seen that the assessee has sold a piece of land on 02.03.2023 for Rs. 49,50,000/-. This sold property was purchased jointly by the assessee with his brother on 16.06.2014. After that the property was gifted to the assessee by his brother on 22.05.2017. Thereafter, out of the sale proceeds of Rs.49,50,000/- the assessee purchased a land for Rs.26,25,020/- for construction of a house. It is seen

2 ITA No.257 /DDN/2026 Girish Kumar Saini vs. ITO

that the registry was done by the assessee jointly with his father even though the entire payment was made by the assessee out of the sale proceeds of the land. Thereafter, the assessee started constructing a house on the said plot and in evidence of the same the assessee has submitted bank details and considerable other details to indicate material being purchased and other expenses related to the construction activity. However, the Ld.AO, vide order dated 15.02.2024, made addition of Rs.32,72,265/- to the returned income on the ground that the amount realized from the sale was not utilized for purchase or the construction of house and also this amount was not deposited in the capital gain account scheme. 3. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) where he could not succeed and the Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Ld. AO. 4. Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with several grounds and has also claimed that there was good evidence in possession of the assessee indicating that the house was duly constructed. It is the contention that these evidences were disregarded. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR argued on the basis of several case laws and the fact that the house property in question was fit for habitation within the time period as per law u/s 54 of the Act for claiming the capital gains exemptions. Towards this, the Ld. AR filed some fresh evidence and requested that this Bench may consider the same since it went to the root of the matter. The Ld. AR filed evidence indicating electricity connection and house tax receipt and also evidence for water connection has been field. It was the submission that these documents indicated that the house was duly constructed within time allowed under the extant provision of the Act and was being occupied or fit for occupation thereafter. 6. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities.

3 ITA No.257 /DDN/2026 Girish Kumar Saini vs. ITO

SSd/- Sd/- (SANJAY AWASTHI) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Dated: 28/07/2026 *PK, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

4 ITA No.257 /DDN/2026 Girish Kumar Saini vs. ITO

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI (Dehradun Circuit Bench, Dehradun)