ANUPAMA NIRAL DESAI,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), VADODARA

(Assessment Year: 2010-11) Anupama Niral Desai, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 31-32 Upkar Society Ward-1(3)(1), Audhavpura, Vadodara. Nr. Harina Ellora Park, Vadodara-390007. [PAN No.AMVPD9416G] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri Viral Marfatia, AR Respondent by: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.03.2025 O R D E R PER: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT:

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Appeal Centre vide order dated 21.06.2024 passed for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

(1) That, the Appellate Order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law/facts, illegal, without jurisdiction, and needs to be quashed.

Asst.Year –2010-11 - 2– (2) That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law/facts by adding Income u/s. 50 C. (3) That the Addition was made without considering reply of the Appellant, without reference being made u/s. 55A. Thus, the entire addition was made against the natural justice and need to be deleted. (4) That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in calculation of proportionate share of the appellant and made addition in total income. (5) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in rejecting the validity of agreement to sale dt. 24/06/1974 and rejecting the possession being handed over to purchaser against the merits and facts of the case. (6) That, the Appellant reserves its right to add, alter, modify or delete any of the Grounds of Appeal hereunto taken before.

3. The brief facts of the case are that as per the information received from AIR, the appellant had sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs.86,15,100/- during the financial year 2009-10, but had not declared the same filing the return of income to the Department. Accordingly with a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 with prior approval of the concerned authority. In response to the same, the appellant filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.32,906/- and Long Term Capital loss of Rs.51,043/-. Subsequently, notices u/s 143(3) and 142(1) were also issued to the appellant, to which the appellant had submitted the required information. After considering the submissions filed by the appellant, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:

…5.1 I have gone through the facts of the case, the assessment order and the submissions filed by the appellant. The appellant contended that the agreement of sale was executed on 24.06.1974 and possession was also handed over to the buyer and hence the transfer of property was effected from 24.06.1974 and registration of sale dated 24.06.2009 was a mere execution of deal. From a perusal of copy of agreement of sale dated 24.06.1974, it is revealed that it was not registered. An unregistered document is not a valid document as per statute. And nowhere in the agreement of sale, the issue of possession of property was mentioned. Even on the other hand, the appellant failed to prove that real possession took place i.e., the appellant failed to furnish any proof like payment of electricity bill or property tax bill, etc., in the name of the buyer. In the absence of any substantiating documentary evidence, it is not tenable that agreement of sale dated 24.06.1974 was valid. In view of the above, the action of the Assessing Officer taking into consideration the date of Registration of Sale Deed as on 24.06.2009 and calculating the LTCG accordingly is in order and no interference is required. Accordingly, the addition made on account of LTCG amounting to Rs.4,30,760/- is confirmed…

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal.