IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6528/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year : 2012-13 Bhadresh Labhshankar Joshi, 9-2/11, Challenger-4, Tahkur Village, Kandivali (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400101 ............... Appellant PAN : AABPJ5304P v/s DCIT, Central Circle-4(1), Room No.1916, 19^th Floor, Air India Building, ……………… Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by : Shri Leyaqat Ali, Sr.DR Date of Hearing – 08/04/2025 Date of Order - 09/05/2025

O R D E R

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 06/11/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2012-13.

2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: –

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal - 52, Mumbai erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,09,74,896/-u/s 50C of the IT Act, 1961. The application of provisions of section 50C is bad in law and the same needs to be deleted and returned income needs to be accepted.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal - 52, Mumbai erred in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 done by the Ld. AO. The same needs to be quashed on one or more grounds.

3. Without prejudice to the above and without admitting, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal - 52, Mumbai erred in completely disregarding the fact that transfer of properties had taken place during F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to A.Y. 2011-12 on execution of agreements on 30.12.2010 together with handling over the possession on that date and hence, provisions of section for transfer could not have been applied in A.Y. 2012-13.

4. Without prejudice to the above and without admitting, the learned Commissioner of Income tax, Appeal - 52, Mumbai erred in relying on the provisions of section 50C ignoring the fact that the valuation for the purpose of this section has to be considered based on the rates prevalent on the date of the first account payee cheques made for the purchase.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has earned income from salary, business income and interest. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed his return of income on 30.07.2012, declaring a total income of Rs.8,08,830/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from the ITO – 29(1)(2), Mumbai, that the assessee has sold three properties at total consideration of Rs.83,81,125/-, whereas the market value of these properties was shown at Rs.2,23,20,000/-, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated as the difference between the sale consideration and market value amounting to Rs.1,39,38,875/- was not offered to tax under section 50C of the Act. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2019. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on

22.04.2019, declaring total income of Rs.8,08,830/-. Since the assessee has transferred three immovable properties at a price, i.e. Rs.83,81,125/-, which was lower than the market value at Rs.2,23,20,000/-, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 27.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) r.w. section 147 of the Act added the differential amount being Rs.1,39,38,875/- to the total income of the assessee under section 50C of the Act. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, upheld that the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and also upheld the addition made under section 50C of the Act, b