SHRI BHADRADA CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2460/Ahd/2025 (�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Shri Bhadrada Chemicals बनाम/ The Dy. Commissioner of Private Limited Income Tax Vs. C/O Deepak Soni & Circle 4(1)(1), Associates, Chartered Ahmedabad Accountants, 5, Jayshree Apartments, Near Law Garden, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380006 �थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AADCS0488E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ� ओर से /Appellant by : Written Submission ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 08/04/2026 Date of Pronouncement 07/07/2026 (आदेश)/ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) dated 13.10.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

ITA No.2460/Ahd/2025 [Shri Bhadrada Chemicals Private Limited vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2016-17 - 2 – referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17.

ITA No.2460/Ahd/2025 [Shri Bhadrada Chemicals Private Limited vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2016-17 - 3 – Rs.4,49,88,171/- was assessed after reducing the cost of acquisition of the asset from the sale consideration of the property. The AO in his order further held that if the assessee’s claim of LTCG is accepted, then for the purposes of computing LTCG the stamp duty value of the property be substituted to the actual consideration received by the assesse in view of Section 50C of the Act and noting so he held that an addition of Rs.84,82,009/- was liable to be made in the hands of the assessee in such circumstances. He further noted that if the claim of LTCG of the assessee is accepted then the assessee needs to offer deemed rent on the same which he calculated to be Rs.28,07,85/- for the impugned year. Accordingly, both the above additions on account of invoking Section 50C of the Act to the computation of LTCG and on account of deemed rent were made on protective basis in the hands of the assessee.

ITA No.2460/Ahd/2025 [Shri Bhadrada Chemicals Private Limited vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2016-17 - 4 – 5. We have gone through the written submissions furnished by the assessee and we find that in the written submission, the assessee had only pointed out the circumstances in which they were unable to appear before the Ld. CIT(A). The request of the assessee in its written submission was only to the extent of restoring the matter back to the Ld.CIT(A) to be decided afresh after hearing the assessee. It has also been stated in the written submissions that if the Tribunal is not inclined to accept the submission of the assessee as above, an opportunity of hearing be given to the assessee and period of three weeks be granted for preparing submissions.

ITA No.2460/Ahd/2025 [Shri Bhadrada Chemicals Private Limited vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2016-17 - 5 – Thus, while the assessee had returned LTCG to the tune of Rs.2.96 Crores, the AO had computed STCG of Rs.4.9 Cores. The basis with the AO for treating the income earned as STCG is finding that the asset sold being an immovable property, i.e, office building i.e. No.704, Dalamal House, Nariman Point, Mumbai ,was reflected as the business asset of the assessee in its financial statement ;as office building under the block of asset office building business asset. The AO noted the assessee to be in the business of leasing activity. Basis above fact, the AO derived that the asset sold was the business asset of the assessee. No evidence was filed before the AO showing the asset to be not a depreciable asset and on which no depreciation had been claimed by the assessee. The above facts have remained uncontroverted before us. Therefore, we have no other choice but to agree with the AO /CIT(A) that the asset sold by the assessee was its business asset. The assessee himself has reflected this asset in the block office building in the tangible fixed asset schedule of its Balance Sheet. As per the assessee itself therefore the asset is a business asset. Therefore, there is no doubt that the impugned asset was business asset of the assessee. Further, the assessee has been unable to offer any explanation for its claim of Municipal Taxes and other expenses, which was claimed while computing the LTCG. The AO noted the assessee to have not paid Municipal taxes at all. In fact, the AO has noted the Municipal taxes to have been paid by the buyer. With nothing on record before us to controvert the said fact the expenses in

ITA No.2460/Ahd/2025 [Shri Bhadrada Chemicals Private Limited vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2016-17 - 6 – relation to Municipal taxes clearly were not incurred by the assessee. There is no reason therefore to allow the claim of the same to the assessee. Even in relation to other expenses claimed by the assessee, in the absence of any substantiation of the same, the AO, we hold, has rightly disallowed the said claim. Further, since, we have held the gains earned on the sale of the impugned property to be treated as STCG, the AO, we hold, was right in disallowing the benefit of indexation to the cost of acquisition of the said property,v since, as per law, the benefit of indexation is allowable only with respect to claim of LTCG. The findings of the AO/CIT(A) have remained uncontroverted before us. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the authorities below treating the LTCG earned by the assessee as STCG. The order of the AO / CIT(A) is accordingly confirmed. The protective addition made, treating the said gain as LTCG, does not survive since the gains have been held to be in the n ature of STCG above by us. The assessee has pleaded the matter to be restored back to CIT(A), for which, we see no reason. It is not the case of the assessee that they want to bring on record certain additional evidences, which were not there before the AO for adjudicating the issue. Since, the entire issue has to be adjudicated on the basis of evidences and documents on record itself, We see no reason to restore the issue back to the Ld. CIT(A), since, it will

ITA No.2460/Ahd/2025 [Shri Bhadrada Chemicals Private Limited vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2016-17 - 7 – only increase litigation and the issue can be decided on merits by us. The assessee has further pleaded that the matter to be adjourned for three weeks in case its request of restoration of matter back to the CIT(A) is not accepted. We again are not inclined to accept this pleading of the assessee. When a matter is taken up for hearing on the request of both the parties, as in the present case, all pleadings need to be made on the same date itself. No party can plead grant of adjournment on the ground that one of its plea has not been accepted. Appeals are to be heard in one go and not in parts. Once, the assessee had submitted to the matter being heard on the basis of written submissions, the same cannot be adjourned, if its request made in the written submissions is not accepted. Whatever pleadings are to be made by the assessee, they have to be made in one go and not in parts. In view of the same, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 07.07.2026

Sd/- sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 07/07/2026 S. K. SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent.

ITA No.2460/Ahd/2025 [Shri Bhadrada Chemicals Private Limited vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2016-17 - 8 – 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CITp 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad