आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, (cid:874)वशाखापटणम पीठ म(cid:581)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench (cid:302)ी रवीश सूद, माननीय Ûया(cid:467)यक सदèय एवं (cid:302)ी एस. बालकृçणन, माननीय लेखा सदèय SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.482/Viz/2024 (िनधा१रण वष१/ Assessment Year: 2020-21)

Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri Surendra Nath Gubbala Ward-3(1) 4-58-4, Lawsonsbay Colony Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam PAN : AFBPG8196F (अपीलाथ(cid:334)/ Appellant) ((cid:366)(cid:529)थ(cid:334)/ Respondent)

CO No.03/Viz/2025 (Arising out of आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.482/Viz/2024)

(िनधा१रण वष१/ Assessment Year: 2020-21)

Shri Surendra Nath Gubbala Vs. Income Tax Officer

4-58-4, Lawsonsbay Colony Ward-3(1)

Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam PAN : AFBPG8196F (अपीलाथ(cid:334)/ Appellant) ((cid:366)(cid:529)थ(cid:334)/ Respondent)

करदाता का ঋितिनिध(cid:533)/ : Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayana Assessee Represented by Rao, CA, AR राज(cid:738) का ঋितिनिध(cid:533)/ : Dr. Aparna Villuri, DR Department Represented by सुनवाई समा(cid:593) होने की ितिथ/ : 02.09.2025 Date of Conclusion of Hearing

घोषणा की तारीख/Dt. of Pronouncement : 10.10.2025

O R D E R (cid:292)(cid:467)त रवीश सूद, ज.े एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M.

The present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 30.09.2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “A.O.”) under Section 143(3) r.w section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 20.09.2022 for A.Y. 2020-21. The revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:

“1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) is erroneous both on facts and in law.

2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.9,00,00,000/- made by the AO in the assessment order u/s.143(3) dated 20.09.2022 towards disallowance of the expenditure claimed by the assessee in connection with transfer of immovable property i.e. land of 10,164 sq. yards situated at R.S.No.199/1, Rajahmundry.

2.2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the amount of Rs.7,00,00,000/ is not the expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred by the assessee in connection wth the transfer of the properties as the same were not taken by the assessee for acquisition of the property or further construction and modification of the properties. In fact, these loans were taken by the companies for their own business purposes by giving the properties as collateral securities. Therefore, the same cannot be the expenditure in relation to transfer of properties from sale consideration.

2.3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the amount in question i.e. Rs.7 crores being settlement of outstanding loans which were directly paid by the buyer to the creditor ie SBI and Axis Bank is to be considered as part of sale consideration received by the assessee, the same are not deductible in computing the capital gains on the said property, which is in the name of the assessee.

2.4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the onus casts on the assessee to show how the iability of the said companies would have a connect with the transfer of the immovable property for the purpose of claiming the same as a deduction from Long Term Capital Gains.

2.5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that in the case of the assessee, the burden of charge as collateral security had been created by the assessee on the property sold by him. As the burden had been created for his own benefits by offering the property as collateral security to the lenders of the company in which the assessee was a dìrector, the amounts spent for discharging that burden of the vendor i.e. assessee whether prior to sale, or at the time of sale, by payment to such creditors including the mortgage