INDIHAF JAMAL MOHAMED,CHENNAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP WARD 10(6), CHENNAI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ (एस एम सी), ᭠यायपीठ,चे᳖ई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘A’ (SMC) BENCH, CHENNAI
᮰ी जॉजᭅ जॉजᭅ, उपा᭟यᭃ के समᭃ
BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2398/CHNY/2025
िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2016-17
Shri Indihaf Jamal Mohamed,
804, Tower-2,
Lake Dugar Apartments,
Kallikuppam, Ambattur,
Chennai – 600 063. PAN: AAHPI 8061N
Vs.
The Income Tax Officer,
Non-Corporate Ward 10(6),
Chennai.
(अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant)
(ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent)
अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri S.R. Srikrishna, CA
ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT
सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 02.12.2025
घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 03.12.2025
आदेश/ O R D E R
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal
Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 24.06.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant
Assessment Year is 2016-17. :- 2 -:
2. Though the assessee has raised two legal grounds, the Ld.AR for the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that the ground raised on merit may only be adjudicated and the legal grounds may be left open. Therefore, the only ground argued by the Ld.AR is that the First Appellate Authority has erred in confirming the order of the AO disallowing the deduction claimed u/s.54 of the Act.
Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual and has not filed his income for the assessment year 2016-17. The Department received information that assessee had sold an immovable property for a sum of Rs.60,00,000/-. Since assessee had not filed his return of income, the AO issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 27.03.2023. In response to notice issued, the assessee filed his return of income on 02.08.2023 declaring total income of Rs.7,65,720/- after claiming deduction u/s.54 of the Act stating that he has sold his residential house property for Rs.60,00,000/- on 21.09.2015 and purchased a new property on 25.12.2015. 4. The AO completed the assessment u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act by disallowing the deduction claimed u/s.54 of the Act. The :- 3 -: AO held that the assessee has not furnished the copy of sale deed to prove the date of sale and ‘transfer has not been taken place for the new property’ within one year as per section 54 of the Act.
Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Before FAA, though various notices of hearing have been issued, there was no compliance from the assessee and hence, the FAA passed ex-parte order. The FAA confirmed the disallowance made by the AO.
Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper-book consisting of 276 pages enclosing therein the sale deed of old property, construction agreement, deed of new property, bank statements, order u/s.271D dropping penalty proceedings, 148A(d) of the Act and various case laws relied on.
The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a retired