DEEPAN PULIN MEHTA,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1) PREVIOUSLY WARD-1(2)(3), VADODARA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 233/Ahd/2025
(िनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2010-11)
Deepan Pulin Mehta
9, Kishan Duplex, Behind
Mother School, Gotri Road,
Vadodara, Gujarat – 390021
बनाम/
Vs.
The Income Tax Officer
Ward 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad
[Previously Income Tax
Officer, Ward 1(2)(3)]
Öथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AGTPM2117R
(Appellant)
..
(Respondent)
अपीलाथȸ ओर से /Appellant by :
Shri Jigar Adhyaru, AR
Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/Respondent by :
Shri Rajiv Garg, Sr.DR
Date of Hearing
30/09/2025
Date of Pronouncement
08/10/2025
(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),
(hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal
Centre
(hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”),
Delhi dated
07.11.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
ITA No. 233/Ahd/2025 [Deepan
Pulin Mehta vs. ITO] A.Y. 2010-11 - 2 –
(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment
Year (A.Y.) 2010-11. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 33,24,000/-, without considering the submission of the appellant filed to him during the course of appellate proceedings and has illegally and incorrectly decided the issue against the appellant. The Hon'ble Bench is prayed to delete such illegal addition of Rs. 33,24,000/- as made confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the ld. CIT (A) confirming the addition of Rs. 33,24,000/- as made by the AO is bad in law ab-initio as the sale deed was executed by DEEPAN PULIN MEHTA HUF, a separate legal entity and the consideration thereof was received by DEEPAN PULIN MEHTA HUF and not the appellant. In view of this, the Hon'ble Bench is prayed to delete such illegal addition of Rs. 33,24,000/- as made by the AO.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the aforesaid ground or grounds if necessary.”
The solitary issue in the present appeal relates to addition made to the income of the assessee on account of alleged sale of an immovable property by the assessee for a total consideration of Rs.33,24,000/-, which was not returned to tax. The assessee was noted to have not filed any return of income for the impugned year and the AO had information of the sale of an immovable property by the asessee, basis which he reopened the case of the assessee by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act. Orders of the authorities
ITA No. 233/Ahd/2025 [Deepan
Pulin Mehta vs. ITO] A.Y. 2010-11 - 3 –
below reveal that the assessee repeatedly denied making any sale of immovable property in his own name stating that the sale was made by assessee’s HUF and not in his individual capacity. The assessee explained that originally the property in question belonged to the assessee’s father Sh. Pulin Kanhialal Mehta. That Pulin Kanhialal Mehta died on 28.12.2004 and through will dated
07.03.2004, 50% of the property was bequeathed to the asessee’s
HUF i.e. Deepan Pulin Mehta HUF, and 50% to his trust, namely,
Pulin Kanhialal Mehta Trust. That the entire property owned by the assesse’s trust and assessee’s
HUF was sold for a consideration of Rs.30,50,000/- and 50% of the sale proceed was deposited in the account of the assessee’s HUF and the balance
50% in the account of the assessee’s trust. Copy of the will of the assessee’s father, Pulin Kanhialal Mehta evidencing the impugned property bequeathed to the assessees HUF and also trust; copy of the sale deed of the property reflecting the assessee’s HUF and the trust as sellers of the property, even copy of the bank statement of the assessee’s HUF and trust reflecting the receipt of sale consideration therein, was filed. However, the AO noted that while registering the sale of property the PAN of the assessee in his individual capacity was furnished and not the PAN of the assessee’s HUF. The entire case of the AO holding the property to have been sold by the assessee in his individual capacity and not by his HUF, rests solely on the fact of the PAN of the assessee in his individual capacity being used for registration of the sale, rejecting all documentary evidences filed by the assessee showing
ITA No. 233/Ahd/2025 [Deepan
Pulin Mehta vs. ITO] A.Y. 2010-11 - 4 –
the sale to have been made by his HUF and trust. The findings of the AO in this regard are contained at para 3.1 of his order as under:
“(1) During the course of assessment, in order to verify the facts of the case, third party verification was carried out and details of immovable property transaction of the assessee was gathered from the Sub-