EDAKALTHUR RAPHEAL FRANCIS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , BENGALORE

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A), Bengaluru-12 dated 22/09/2025 vide DIN and order no: ITBA/APL /S/250/2025-26/1081016230(1) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the AY 2016- 17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - 1. That the order of the ld. CIT(A) in so far is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant is bad and erroneo0us in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. Grounds on order u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order on the very same day on which the adjournment was sought by the appellant.

ITA No.2535/Bang/2025 Edakalthur Rapheal Francis, Bengaluru Page 2 of 3 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in passing an order without providing an opportunity of being heard which i9s against the principle of natural justice and liable to be quashed. Deduction of cost of acquisition and cost of improvement 4. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in passing the order without considering the cost of acquisition and cost of improvements. 5. That the learned CIT(A) ought to have considered that the appellant has made investment towards construction of property and claimed deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. 6. That the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that after claiming the benefit of section 54F the total income was not chargeable to tax. 7. That the learned CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the 6th proviso to section 139 of the Act was enabled w.e.f. 01/04/2020 only. 8. Without prejudice to the above the learned CIT(A) ought to have considered the income from sale of property under the head “Capital Gains” rather than “Income from Other Sources”.