IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA No. 811/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year. 2012-13 Amit Girdharbhai Patel The ACIT D-9, Navdeep Society, Circle-1(1)(1), Behind Gokuldham Vs Vadodara Society, Manjalpur-GIDC Road, Manjalpur, Vadodara, Gujarat-390011 (Respondent)

PAN: ACQPP7377M (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. &

Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmer, ARs.

Revenue Represented: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R.

Date of hearing : 18-06-2025 Date of pronouncement : 14-08-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13.

2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual filed his Return of Income for the Asst. Year 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs.90,38,230/-. Regular assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 10-02-2015 accepting the returned income. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information that the assessee sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.1,02,00,000/- whereas the stamp duty value was Rs.2,39,32,400/- thereby attracting provisions of Section 50C of the Act. Therefore the assessment was reopened by issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 31-03-2019.

2.1. In response, the assessee filed Return of Income on 02-04- 2019 declaring the same total income of Rs.90,38,230/-. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee made a registered Agreement of Sale (Banakhat) on 16-02-2010 with one Shri Nilesh V Shah to transfer the land located at R.S. No. 556 Moje Chapad, Vadodara for a consideration of Rs.80,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- received by the assessee as advance. As per the terms and conditions of the Banakhat, possession was to be given to Shri Nelesh V. Shah after receipt of full consideration of Rs.80,00,000/-. In the meantime, Shri Nilesh V. Shah made an agreement with Shri Rameshbhai Manibhai Patel to transfer the impugned land for consideration of Rs.1,02,00,000/-. The final sale deed was registered on 13-03-2012 vide document No. 2889/2012. The Stamp Duty Valuation Authority valued the land at Rs.2,39,32,400/-. In the registered sale deed, the assessee was the Seller, Shri Rameshbhai Manibhai Patel was the Purchaser and Shri Nilesh V. Shah was shown as the Confirming Party.

3.1. Further it was noted by the A.O. that the assessee did not give possession of the impugned land to Shri. Nilesh V Shah at the time of Banakhat. So there was no transfer in view of the provisions of section 2(47) of the Act. However, in the final sale deed dated 13/03/2012, the assessee appeared as the seller and the property was sold at the consideration less than the stamp duty value thereby attracting the provisions of section 50C of the Act.

3.2. In the appellate order No.CAB/5-933/2014-15 dated 26/11/2015 in the case of Shri. Nilesh V Shah for the AY 2012-13, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) remarked that in this case the transfer did not take place as per section 2(47) of the Act and hence the provisions of Section 50C would not be applicable in the hands of Shri. Nilesh V Shah but would be applicable in the case of Shri. Amit G Patel i.e. the assessee herein. The relevant portion of the appellate order is reproduced here as follows:-

"Therefore, the provisions of section 50C of the Act may be applicable in the cases of Srhi Amit G. Patel, Shri Kirit D. Patel and Shri Arvind G. Patel, but not in the case of the assesse, as no "transfer." of property took place in his case, in terms of section 2(47) of the Act. In view of the fact that the assessee is not a seller of the property, th