IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2499/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year:2020-2021)

Ketan Himatlal Mehta

1^st Floor, Cine Star Building, Trikamdas Road, Kandivali West Mumbai – 400067. Maharashtra.

[PAN:ADDPM0713C] …………. Appellant Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

1(1)(1), Mumbai Room No.579, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Maharashtra. …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Rakesh Joshi For the Respondent/Department : Shri Pravin Salunkhe Date Conclusion of hearing : 17.10.2025 Pronouncement of order : 16.12.2025

O R D E R

[

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the Order, dated 26/03/2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’ whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 23/09/2022, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2020-2021.

2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

“1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding additions of Rs

18,48,70,810 u/s 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made by the Assessing Officer as the Ld. CIT(A) also did not consider the submissions made by the appellant from time to time.

2 The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the Agreement dated 24.8.2013 signed between M/s Vaibhav Development Corporation and Mr. Vijay Krishnaji Sawant proprietor of Vaibhav Developers on one side as the Vendors and Vanshree Developers, a partnership firm, wherein the appellant was a partner, on the other side as purchasers for Rs. 12 crores in respect of the same immovable property located at Dahisar.

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered on 01/11/2017 between Mr. Abbot Anthony Quinny and the Appellant and agreed to renounce all Rights, Title and Interest in the same immovable property located at Dahisar in favor of the Appellant for Rs. 9,00,00,000. It is important to note that out of total consideration of Rs.9,00,00,000 an amount of Rs.3,00,00,000 was paid on 31.10.2017 and the said MOU culminated in Conveyance Deed dated 19.09.2019.

4. Order passed is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the appellant prays to delete the additions of Rs.

18,48,70,810 confirmed by Ld. CIT(A).”

3. The relevant facts in brief are the Assessee, an individual, filed its return of Income for the Assessment Year 2020-2021 on 30/01/2021 showing a total income of INR.55,48,740/-, The case was selected for regular scrutiny, inter-alia, for verification of purchase of property for consideration less than the stamp duty value. On perusal of order passed by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) it emerges that Assessee had claimed to have purchased land located a Dahisar, Mumbai through a partnership firm (i.e., Vanshree Developer) vide Agreement dated 24/08/2013, which was registered on 22/11/2013 for a total consideration of INR.12,00,00,000/-. Subsequently, dispute arose regarding ownership of the land and in terms of consent terms drawn up between the disputing parties, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court directed the Assessee to make additional payment of INR.9,00,00,000/-. Thereafter, Sale Deed, dated 19/09/2019, was executed between the Assessee and the disputing party for consideration of INR.9,00,00,000/-. The Assessee had provided following chronology of events to the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A):

(a) Originally the agricultural land in question belonged to Mr. Anwar Haji Alimohammed Haji Kassam and family, who had given this land for the purpose of cultivation to Mr. Louis Francis Misquitta. As per Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948, the Mr. Louis Francis Misquitta was declared as tenant. He had made an application in the year 1968 to the Tehsildar, Taluka Borivli, Bombay Subur