GAURAV PANDEY,GONDA vs. THE DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), LUCKNOW

2021-22 against impugned appellate order dated 18/06/2025 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1077150023(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].

(B) In this case assessment order dated 31/12/2022 was passed u/s 143(3) of the I. T. Act whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.22,24,830/- as against returned income of Rs.4,96,830/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, an addition of Rs.17,28,000/- was made u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. The relevant portion of the assessment order is reproduced as below:

(B.1) The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid assessment order was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 18/06/2025. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A).

(C) At the time of hearing, learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in making the aforesaid addition of Rs.17,28,000/- without referring the matter to the valuation cell to determine fair market value of the property (residential unit). He further submitted that in any case the addition made is in violation of the CBDT Circular whereby the safe harbor was raised from 10% to 20% for transactions in real estate during the period 12th November 2020 to 30th June 2021. The relevant portion of the CBDT circular is reproduced below:

Learned A.R. further submitted that the property transaction by the assessee was of the value below Rs. two crore and transaction took place between 12th November 2020 to 30th June 2021. Further he submitted that the property purchased by the assessee was in the nature of primary purchase of residential house. Therefore, learned A.R. for the assessee submitted, the assessee satisfied all the requirements for being granted the benefit as per the aforesaid CBDT circular. Accordingly, he submitted, the aforesaid addition of Rs.17,28,000/- should be deleted. Learned Departmental Representative accepted, in all fairness that aforesaid CBDT circular was applicable in the case of the assessee; and left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. In view of the foregoing, the transaction of the assessee is residential property, is duly covered by the aforesaid CBDT circular because the property transaction by the assessee was of the value below Rs. two crore and transaction took place between 12th November 2020 to 30th June 2021. In view of the aforesaid, Assessing Officer is directed to delete the aforesaid addition of Rs.17,28,000/-. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.