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

SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4771/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14)

Shyam Gopal Vs. DCIT, Circlel-52(1)

63, Babar Road,, Bengali Delhi Market Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110001 (cid:1)थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ACKPG6208J Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv.

Sh. Pawan Garg, 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 10.07.2025 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 11.05.2023 of Ld. AO/National Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ld. AO’)

u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act for AY: 2013-14.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed income tax return on 30.09.2013 declaring income of Rs.20.29,640/-. The assessee is co-owner of property i.e. land measuring 5,176.08 Sq. Meters in Subhas Nagar, New Delhi. The assessee along with co-owner entered into collaboration and development agreement dated 07.08.2002 with the developer M/s Kailash Nath Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd., 55% of the developed area to be the share of the assessee and the co-owners and 45% to be the share of the developer. In furtherance of the agreement, a registered General Power of Attorney was executed by all co-owners on 22-01-2003 with Sub-Registrar-1, New Delhi. The execution of the agreement and the registered Attorney established the transfer of rights in the property on 22-01-2003 read with the agreement dated 07-08-2002, relevant to AY 2003-04. The developer handed over the possession of the developed multiplex to the assessee vide letter dated 09.01.2012, which relates to AY 2012-13. Then on 08.03.2015 M/s Kailash Nath Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd. sold major part out of its share i.e. 45% of built-up area to Shri Prahlad Dass Mittal for a consideration of Rs. 11,00,00,000/-. On the basis of this information, the AO alleged that Sh. Shyam Gopal & Others were required to pay capital gain arose out of collaboration agreement on receipt of possession of the developed area i.e. their 55% share in multiplex complex in F.Y. 2012-13 and made the addition of Rs. 5,48, 10,952/- in the hands of the assessee.

3. On completion of proceedings the ld. AO vide order dated 11.05.2023 made addition of Rs.5,48,10,952/-.

4. Against the order dated 11.05.2023 of ld. AO the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated

10.07.2025.

5. Being aggrieved the appellant assessee preferred present appeal on following grounds:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre ("CIT(A), NFAC") is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts.

2. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the reassessment order passed by the AO despite the fact that the notice issued under section 148 is itself is invalid, illegal, non-est and liable to be quashed as the same has been issued beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under the Act. (ii) That the notice issued by the AO under section 148 is barred by limitation and liable to be set aside in view of the limitation period prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the AO despite the fact that show-cause notice issued under Section 148A (b) of the Act, order passed under Section 148A(d), notice issued under section 148 and consequent reassessment order passed by AO under Section 147