ARVIND KUMAR RANA,NOIDA vs. DDIT/ADIT( IN TAX.) NOIDA, NOIDA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A No. 83/Del/2026 (Assessment Year : 2023-24) Arvind Kumar Rana Vs. DDIT/ADIT (Int. Tax.) C-2/401, Cleo County, Sector – 24, Noida Sector – 121, Noida Uttar Pradesh – 201 301 Uttar Pradesh – 201 301 PAN No. ABXPR 6059 G (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by -None- Revenue by Dr. Shalini Verma, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing: 07.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 27.07.2026 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the assessment order dated 24.09.2025, passed by Income Tax Department, Office of the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, DDIT/ADIT (INT. TAX.), Noida (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO), passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) in pursuance of directions of the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-1,

IT(IT)A No. 83/DEL/2026 [A.Ys 2023-24] Arvind Kumar Rana vs. DDIT/ADIT(Int. Taxation) Delhi-2 (in short ‘ld. DRP') dated 10.09.2025 pertaining to Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We heard the ld. DR at length who assisted us with the facts of the case. Case records carefully perused and considered. 3. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in taxing the difference computed under section 50C as “Income from Other Sources”, though section 50C is confined to “Capital Gains”. The addition is thus void ab initio and unsustainable in law. Rs.7,49,353/- 2. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities erred in applying the first proviso to section 50C(1) by adopting the stamp value as on the registration date instead of the date of agreement evidenced by prior banking receipt. The addition is unsustainable. 3. The Assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”

Page 2 of 8

IT(IT)A No. 83/DEL/2026 [A.Ys 2023-24] Arvind Kumar Rana vs. DDIT/ADIT(Int. Taxation) Ground Floor, Plot No. 819, Niti Khand-I, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad at a consideration of Rs 88,00,000. 6. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. During the assessment proceedings, the learned Assessing Officer proposed in draft assessment order that the difference between the actual sale consideration and the stamp duty valuation be treated as the assessee's "unexplained income." Aggrieved, the assessee approached DRP which upheld the addition. The AO passed the Final Assessment Order dated 24.09.2025 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, assessing the income of the Assessee at 239,49,590 as against the returned income of 213,48,590, by making an addition of ₹26,01,000. Aggrieved the assessee is before us. 7. The assessee contends in its written submission that the property at Ghaziabad were sold for Rs.88,00,000/- and sale deed was executed on 26.09.2022. The assessee submits that the circle rate were revised w.e.f 24.08.2022 and therefore, the stamp valuation authority adopted value of Rs.1,14,01,000/- based on the revised circular rate. The AO has accordingly adopted the stamp duty value of Rs.1,14,01,000/- and has assessed the resultant difference under the head ‘Income from other sources’ while invoking section 50C of the Act.

Page 3 of 8

IT(IT)A No. 83/DEL/2026 [A.Ys 2023-24] Arvind Kumar Rana vs. DDIT/ADIT(Int. Taxation) 8. The assessee contests that while section 50C is confined to capital gains, and being a deeming provision, section 50C cannot be invoked for computing the gain from sale of property as ‘income from other sources’ relying on the decision of CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. (SC) 273 ITR 1 (2005). 9. The assessee states that without prejudice, even assuming that Section 50C is otherwise applicable, the authorities have failed to apply the mandatory First Proviso to Section 50C(1). That substantial consideration had already been received through specified banking channels before the revision of the stamp duty valuation. The statute requires only that the agreement, fixing the consideration should precede the registration and that consideration or part thereof should have been received through prescribed banking modes. The assessee contends that nowhere requires the existence of a separate written or registered agreement. The authorities have therefore imported into the statute a condition which Parliament never enacted, thereby defeating the very object of the beneficial amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2016. 10. Per contra, the ld DR relied on the orders of the AO and the DRP. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the materials on record. We find that out of Rs 88,00,000 of sales

Page 4 of 8

IT(IT)A No. 83/DEL/2026 [A.Ys 2023-24] Arvind Kumar Rana vs. DDIT/ADIT(Int. Taxation) consideration, the assessee received Rs 24,10,000/-, through banking channels on 05/07/2022 and 09/07/2022. The Circle rates were revised on 24.08.2022 and the registration for sale of the said property was made on 26.09.2022. 12. In such facts and circumstances, we have to examine the applicability of proviso to section 50C(1) of the Act which is extracted as under: 50C(1)****** Provided that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for the transfer of the capital asset are not the same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purposes of computing full value of consideration for such transfer:

The proviso to section 50C(1) provides for adopting the stamp duty valuation on the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration. We are of the view that the agreement can be oral or written. We are therefore, of the view that, in the instant case, the agreement to sell was acted upon by the parties before the revision of the circle rates, as is evidenced by substantial consideration in the form of advance being paid to the assessee through the banking channel. To our mind, the provisions of section 50C(1) do not require a separate written or formal agreement to sell. In view of the same, we are inclined to hold

Page 5 of 8

IT(IT)A No. 83/DEL/2026 [A.Ys 2023-24] Arvind Kumar Rana vs. DDIT/ADIT(Int. Taxation) that the Assessee satisfied the statutory conditions prescribed under the First Proviso to Section 50C(1). We are therefore inclined to agree with the assessee that the AO has erred in not applying the proviso to section 50C (1) by adopting the stamp value as on date of agreement to sell instead of date of registration and therefore the impugned addition is unjustified. 13. We are further of the view that Section 50C, being a deeming provision for computation of capital gains, in the present case, cannot be invoked to assess the gain on sale of immovable property as income under the head "Income from Other Sources". The AO has committed a fundamental error in law by invoking the provisions of section 50C(1), which deals exclusively with Capital Gains, and making additions under residuary head of “income from other sources”. This act of the AO has vitiated the assessment order. Ground is allowed in aforesaid terms. 14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (NAVEEN CHANDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 27.07.2026 Priti Yadav, Sr. Ps*

Page 6 of 8

IT(IT)A No. 83/DEL/2026 [A.Ys 2023-24] Arvind Kumar Rana vs. DDIT/ADIT(Int. Taxation) Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

Page 7 of 8