IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sushama Rajesh Rao, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.159, Priyadarshani, R. T. Nagar, of Income Tax, MLA Layout, Circle – 6(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore.

PAN : ACYPR 5251 J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore.

Date of hearing : 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025

O R D E R

Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President:

1. ITA No.49/Bangalore/2023 is filed by Smt. Sushama Rajesh Rao (the assessee/appellant) for Assessment Year 2012 – 13 against the Appellate Order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (Delhi), the learned CIT(A), dated 07.12.2022 raising following grounds of appeal:

1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed under section 250 r.w.s 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") dated 07.12.2022 for Assessment Year 2012-13 in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case.

2. The Appellant denies herself liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs.

8,83,93,817/- as against the returned income of Rs. 39,70,830/- under the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in holding that the provisions of section 50C of the Act is mandatory and thereby upholding the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer of a sum of Rs. 55,39,181/- on the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that in view of the third proviso to section 50C of the Act difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value to the extent of ten percent is to be ignored and consequently the addition made under section 50C of the Act is contrary to the provisions of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the sale consideration declared by the appellant is the market value of the property which is as per the government guidance value of the property and consequently the addition made under section 50C of the Act is unwarranted on the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

failed to appreciate that the in case of dispute in value of the property, the valuation of the property ought to have been referred to a Valuation Officer in accordance with the provisions of section 50(2) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in assessing a sum of Rs. 8,36,25,000/- as the alleged long term capital gains arising on sale of the agricultural land as against the returned short term capital gains of Rs. Nil on the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in holding that the learned Assessing Officer was justified in making addition of a sum of Rs. 8,36,25,000/- on the facts and circumstances of the case.

9. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the property sold acquired the nature of a capital asset only on the date of conversion from agricultural land to nonagricultural lands and consequently the cost of acquisition of the converted land is equivalent to the fair market value of the land as on the date of conversion i.e., Rs.

8,36,25,000/- on the facts and circumstances of the case.

10. Without prejudice, the authorities below are not justified in holding that the cost of acquisition of the property transferred by the appellant is Nil which is contrary to the provisions of section 49 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case.

11. The learned Commissioner