##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

“B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

BEFORE SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 814/AHD/2025

Assessment Year: 2012-13

Kamleshbhai Manubhai Patel, Deputy Commissioner of

78, Samir Park, Income Tax, Circle - 1

Subhanpura, (1)(1),

Vadodara, Vs. Vadodara – 390007

Gujarat - 390023

[PAN – ACPPP2613K]

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Deepak Shah, AR

Revenue by Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R

Date of Hearing 22.01.2026

Date of Pronouncement 05.02.2026

O R D E R

PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of National

Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’],

dated 28.03.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13 in the

proceeding u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return

of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 30.07.2011 declaring total income of Rs.

85,860/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny. In the course of assessment,

the AO found that the assessee had purchased a piece of land on

21.01.2011 at a cost of Rs.30 Lakhs, which was sold on 24.11.2011 for a

ITA No. 814/Ahd/2025

Kamleshbhai Manubhai Patel Vs. DCIT, AY- 2012-13

2

consideration of Rs.35 Lakhs. The gain derived by the assessee on the

sale of this land was disclosed under the head “Income from business”.

According to the AO, the gain derived on sale of land was assessable to

tax under the head ‘capital gain’. The AO had applied the provision of

section 50C of the Act, to compute the short-term capital gain derived by

the assessee on the sale of land. It was found that the stamp duty paid on

the sale of land was at jantri value of Rs. 1.37 crores. Accordingly, the AO

had taken the sale consideration of land at Rs.1.37 crores and worked out

STCG of Rs.1,05,22,850/- which was added to income. Further, the AO

had also disallowed the claim for deduction of interest made by the

assessee under the head income from business. The assessment was

completed under section 143(3) on 18.03.2015 at total income of

Rs.1,07,58,980/-.

3. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an

appeal before the first appellate authority which was decided by the Ld.

CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was

dismissed.

4. Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following

grounds have been taken in this appeal:

1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has

erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in not

accepting the returned income of Rs 85,860/- and assessing the income

at Rs. 1,07,58,981/ The Ld A.O may please be directed to accept the

returned income.

2 (i) The Ld. CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has

erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O in holding

–

ITA No. 814/Ahd/2025

Kamleshbhai Manubhai Patel Vs. DCIT, AY- 2012-13

3

a) That the appellant is not engaged in the business of trading in land and

real estate,

b) That the sale of land at Survey No. 279, 281/2 during the year is the sale

of a capital asset and not business asset as claimed,

c) That the transaction of sale of land at Survey No. 279, 281/2 was liable

to be taxed as capital gains as against business income,

d) That the consideration on sale of capital asset is to be substituted based

on the value quantified for the levy of stamp duty on the date of

conveyance of the land as against on the date when agreement for sale

is executed,

e) That the consideration for the sale of land was to be substituted at Rs.

137,00,000/-as against Rs.35,00,000/- declared by invoking the

provisions of sec 50C and the capital gains was to be determined at Rs.

105,22,850/-.

The above findings and the taxation of the transaction of land as capital

gain being erroneous in law and in facts is prayed to be cancelled and

income from sale of land as offered by the appellant may please be

directed to be accepted.

(ii) Without prejudice to the abov