IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP &

MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 5675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19)

Laxman Kanaiyalal Dharmani, ITO, Ward-23(2)(6), Roop Kala CHS, 603, 6^th Floor, Room No. 613, Plot No. 128, West Avenue Road, Piramal Chamber, Vs.

Santacruz (West), Maharashtra.

Mumbai-400054.

PAN: AABPD3310P Assessee) : Revenue)

Assessee by : Shri Gunjan Kakkad, AR Revenue by : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [In short 'CIT(A)'] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 01.09.2025 for Assessment Years (AY) 2018-19. The assessee raised the following grounds:

“Each ground in without prejudice to each other. The grounds of appeal are taken

hereunder:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax Appeal (hereinafter for sake of brevity referred to as the "Ld. CTT(A)") has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer where he had applied provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act")

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to re-compute the income chargeable to tax under section 56(2)(x) of the Act without appreciating that the said provisions do not apply in the present case.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to provide an opportunity of personal hearing which had been specifically sought.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant is not chargeable to income-tax either under capital gains or under income from other sources.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that even if provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act, no income can be charged to tax.

6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant submits that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is invalid and non-est.”

2. The assessee is an individual and filed the return of income for AY 2018-19 on 24.07.2018 declaring a total income of Rs. 9,30,570/-. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) called on the assessee to furnish the details along with documents in relation to the immovable property sold/purchased during the year under consideration. The details of facts pertaining to the transactions of immovable property submitted by the assessee are as under:

"The assessee along with his wife Mrs. Mamta L. Darmani purchased a residential flat in "Roopkala CHS Ltd." a Society in Santacruz (West), for a consideration of Rs. 25,25,000/- on 24.01.2001. The Society went for redevelopment and entered into an agreement with M/s Orra Realtors Pvt. Ltd. dated 23.10.2010 which was registered on 07.02.2011. As per the terms of the agreement the members of the society (including the assessee and his wife) shall be provided with additional area at 135% of the original area. Further it is agreed that the members who are desirous of purchasing additional area would have to pay Rs. 21,000/- per sq. ft. upto 100 sq. ft. and the area in excess would be charged at Rs. 23 to 50 per sq. ft. The Society entered into a supplementary agreement with the Builder owing to the change in development control regulations on 01.03.2013. As per the revised terms the assessee was provided additional area of 120 sq. ft. besides the originally agreed area of 135%. Accordingly the assessee received 961 sq.ft in exchange of the old flat. The assessee also bought 159 sq.ft. at the cost of Rs. 34,71,750/- (100 sq. ft. x Rs. 21,000/- + 159 sq.ft. x Rs. 23,250/-.). As per the ag