ARIF ALI KHAN,DELHI vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6985/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 July 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the transactions occurred during AY 2017-18, not AY 2018-19. Therefore, the addition made by the AO for AY 2018-19 was arbitrary and erroneous.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns an addition made by the AO for AY 2018-19. The assessee had purchased a property in March 2017 and the sale deed was dated July 2017.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO for AY 2018-19 was valid when the underlying transactions pertained to AY 2017-18.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH‘B’: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Sharma, CA
Hearing: 22/06/2026Pronounced: 03/07/2026

PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the

order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal

Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ld. CIT(A)]

arising out of the assessment order dated 28.04.2021 passed by the

AO under section143(3) r.w.s144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961

(hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2018-19.

ITA No.6985/Del/2025 2 Arif Ali Khan vs. NFAC 2. The case of the assessee in this appeal are that, the Ld. AO has passed the order without jurisdiction in which the addition has been made for Assessment Year 2018-19 whereas the business income computed by Learned AO at Rs.1,11,19,600/- being sale consideration of Rs.1,79,00,000/- the consideration whereof is (Rs.1,76,00,000+30,00,000/-) adjusted against the purchase costs of Rs.67,80,400. However, it is evident from the sale deed particularly appearing at page 97 of the PB filed before us where the assessee purchased the property at Rs.1,76,00,000/- and paid the stamp duty at Rs.8,80,000/- and the date of registration is of 31.03.2017. The consideration whereof was paid on 07.03.2017, 24.03.2017 and 31.03.2017 of Rs.12,00,000/-, Rs.10,00,000, and Rs.1,54,00,000/-, all by way of demand draft in favour of vendor assessee. Such details of consideration paid by the purchaser to the vender i.e. assessee before us is available at page 97 i.e. page 2 of the sale deed dated 31.07.2017.

3.

In view of the transactions having been done, during the year 2017-18 and not A.Y 2018-19 and, therefore, the addition for assessment Year 2018-19 as made by the AO is completely arbitrarily, erroneous and liable to be set aside as the crux of the submissions made by the Ld. AR which has not be able to be controverted by the Ld. DR. Hence, having regard to the entire aspects of the matter particularly the consideration paid by the assessee from 07th March, 2017 to 31st March, 2017 during the

ITA No.6985/Del/2025 3 Arif Ali Khan vs. NFAC

Assessment Year 2017-18 and not Assessment Year 2018-19 order impugned is found to be bad in law and thus, quashed.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on. 03. 07.2026 Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 03 .07.2026 *PK/R.Naheed, Sr. Ps* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →