INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3300/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Inamul Haq S/o Sh. Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Yamin, Vill.Megh Chhappar, Ward-2.

Ambalaa Road, Saharanpur (U.P)

Saharanpur PAN: AAIPH2840K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv.

Department by: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 12.08.2025 Date of pronouncement: 10.10.2025 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The appeal filed by assessee is against order dated 29.03.2016 of Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-, Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred as “the Ld. CIT(A)”) under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 17.03.2015 of the Learned Assessing Officer/The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Saharanpur (hereinafter referred as “Ld. AO") under Sections 147/143(3) of the Act for assessment year 2009-10.

2. Brief facts of case are that assessee is a Pensioner of the Government Department. The assessee filed his return of income at Rs.1,21,546/- on 30.07.2009. Later on, it was noticed that assessee sold immoveable property for a sale consideration of Rs.41,57,100 (Circle Rate Rs.51,73,925/-) as per section 50C of the Act. As the land sold was capital asset and no income from capital gain was shown in the return from transaction of immoveable property, notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 06.01.2014 was issued for escapement of income. The assessee filed reply dated 26.02.2014 stating that return filed by him on 30.07.2009 may be treated as filed under Section 148 of the Act. Notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued. Shri Deepak Gupta, CA/AR attended proceedings, filed replies and relevant material. On completion of assessment proceeding, Ld. AO passed order dated 17.03.2015 by making addition of Rs.14,05,500/-, Rs.37,090/- and Rs.50,31,150/-.

3. Against order dated 17.03.2015 of Ld. AO, the appellant/assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated

29.03.2016.

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

“1. That the Learned CIT(A) is wrong and unjustified in not allowing exemption u/s 54F in respect of all the three houses-one in the name of appellant and two in the name of son, constructed out of the sale proceeds of land.

2. That Learned CIT(A) is wrong and unjustified in restricting the exemption u/s 54-F in respect of only house belonging to the appellant up to the date of filing of return, on the ground that no compliance of the provisions of section u/s 54F(4)) has been made ignoring the fact that the entire amount remained in Bank account and payment to the contractor was made after withdrawing the amount from the bank account. In alternative the exemption should has been allowed up to the time for filing the return u/s 139(4).

3. That Learned CIT(A) is wrong and unjustified in not allowing the exemption u/s 54-F in respect of houses constructed in the name of son and various decisions replied upon by the appellant has not been distinguished”.

5. Appellant/assessee through application dated 05.01.2023 requested following additional grounds of appeal:

“1. That the notice issued u/s 148 and reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction.

2. That, the assessment order passed by the non-jurisdictional officer, therefore, the assessment order passed is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction.

3. That, no application of mind by the assessing officer while recording the alleged satisfaction and failed to establish the live nexus between tangible material and income escaped assessment, which is vague, incorrect and baseless, hence, the proceedings initiated is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. The CIT (A) has erred in upholding the valid