आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री रिीश सूद ,न्याधयक सदस्य BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.242/VIZ/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2010-11)

Reddi Paiditalli Naidu Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)

National Faceless Appeal Centre D.No.8-106 Nalla Quarry Colony Pendurthi Visakhapatnam – 531173 [PAN: AHJPR0703K]

करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Sr.DR सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 18.02.2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 18.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 18.02.2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “A.O”) under section 144 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 28.12.2017 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts.

2. That having regard to facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not reversing the action of the Ld. A.O. in treating the difference between Market price and price as per sale deed as income from STCG without considering the corroborative evidence of Rs.25,03,000.

3. That in any case and in any view of the matter, the order under appeal is bad in law and is against the facts and circumstances of the case in as much as the disallowances made by La. A.O. were not deleted by Ld.CIT(A) and therefore assessment order as well as appeal order passed by Ld. CIT(A) are not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds.

4. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”

2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y.2010-11 on 25.11.2010, declaring an income of Rs. 5,88,670/-. Subsequently, the AO gathered that the assessee, during the subject year, had, though sold an immovable property vide Registered Document No. 1883/2009 at SRO, Dwarakanagar, but had failed to disclose the “capital gains” arising on the said transfer transaction in his return of income. Also, it was observed by the AO that the difference between the value adopted by the registering authority and the actual sale consideration disclosed in the registered sale deed worked out at Rs. 57,10,000/-. Accordingly, the AO, based on the aforesaid facts, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 31.03.2017, was issued to the assessee after obtaining the prior approval from the competent authority.

3. As the assessee had failed to comply with the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2017, therefore, the AO proceeded to frame the assessment to the best of his judgment. Also, the notice(s) issued by the AO under section 142(1) of the Act were not responded to by the assessee.

4. The AO, in the course of the assessment proceedings, observed that the assessee had, during the subject year, sold a vacant plot admeasuring 936 Sq. Yards for a consideration of Rs. 65,52,000/- (along with other co-owners). The AO observed that the aforesaid sale transaction was registered vide document No.1883/2009, at SRO, Dwarakanagar, and the assessee had received his 1/4^th share of sale consideration of Rs. 16,38,000/- (i.e. 1/4^th of Rs.65,52,000/-) vide Cheque No. 80257 drawn at HDFC, Dwarakanagar Branch.

5. The AO, on a perusal of the registered sale deed, observed that the Registering