IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &

SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2962/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Azizul Ghani Vs. ITO, Ward 63(3)

1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 (cid:1)थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAJPG7737K Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Rano Jain, Adv.

Ms. Mansi Jain, Adv..

Department by : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.02.2026 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:

The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 17.03.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘The CIT’) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of assessment order dated 22.12.2017 of Ld. AO/ITO, Ward 63(3), Delhi, u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY: 2015-16.

2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 29.03.2016 declaring income of Rs.18,71,470/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act at returned income. The case was selected by CASS for limited scrutiny for verification of the claim of deduction under head capital gain. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. On completion of proceedings ld. AO vide order dated 22.12.2017 held that an impugned of Rs.35,00,000/- qualifies for deduction u/s 54 of the Act and the amount of Rs.6,66,46,841/- did not qualify deduction and same was added back to the income of assessee under the head of long term capital gain.

3. Against order dated 22.12.2017 of ld. AO the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 17.03.2025.

4. Being aggrieved appellant assessee preferred present appeal with following grounds:

“1. That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), dated 17.03.2025, is bad in law and on facts and liable to be quashed, being contrary to the facts of the case and settled judicial principles.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of exemption under Section

54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without properly appreciating the evidences, facts, and circumstances of the case.

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the new residential property at A-

227, New Friends Colony, New Delhi was substantially acquired and constructed well within the statutory period of 3 years from the date of transfer, and the registration of deed for ½ share was delayed by a mere 15 days due to procedural technicalities, despite substantial payments already made prior to the expiry of the period.

4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order on the revised and corrected computation of capital gains submitted during the appellate proceedings, wherein the assessee had provided a detailed and substantiated working of the indexed cost of acquisition, including:

• Indexed cost of 32.5% share of original purchase price of Property No. B-480, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (purchased on 12.08.1985) 5,98,000 ×

32.5% × 1024/133 = 14,96,349 • Indexed cost of Freehold Charges (paid on 14.10.1999) 1,35,546 × 32.5% ×

1024/389 - 1,14,252 • Proportionate indexed cost of construction during FY 2008-2010 77,50,652 ×

(374.86/940.61) × 1024/711 = 44,48,649 Total Indexed Cost of Acquisition = 69,43,452 Resulting Correct Long-Term Capital Gain = 6,47,06,548 (against the assessed figure of 7,01,46,841 or the incorrect revised figure of

5,95,05,940)

5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the proof of construction of the new property was duly submitted during the appellate proceedings in the form of construction bills, architect-approved maps, MCD inspection reports, bank statements, and final registered sale deed, all of which clearly demonstrated substantial compliance with Section 54 conditions.

6. That the Ld, CIT(A) failed to consider that payment of stamp duty amounting to

77,28,397 is pa