, , आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में हैदराबाद ‘ए’ बेंच हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “A” Bench, Hyderabad , , श्री विजय पाल राि माननीय उपाध्यक्ष एिं श्री मंजूनाथ जी माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.541/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Mahmood Hussain Syed, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner R/o.Hyderabad. of Income-tax, Circle 6(1), PAN : AZFPM1346M Hyderabad.

(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri Palivela Santosh Kranthi, Assessee C.A.

Represented by राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ : Ms. V. Koteshwaramma, Sr.

Department Represented by A.R.

सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ : 18.02.2026 Date of Conclusion of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख/ : 13.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R

PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M :

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, dated

03.10.2023, pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under :

“1. The learned AO has erred in facts and law while e passing the assessment order u/s 143(3).

2. 69 Unexplained Investment: The learned AO erred in adding Rs. 2,37,92,4 44/-as unexplained investment ignoring the fact that the mismatch in capital account was due to the mistake committed by assessee's assistant while preparing the account who missed considering few document having impact on financials.

3. 50C Deemed Sale Consideration: The learned AO erred in considering the sale value arrived by applying the deeming provision s of section 50C, ignoring the peculiarity of the case and true nature of asset.

and made an addition of Rs. 97,76,424/-.

4. 56(2)(vii) (b) Deemed income - The learned AO erred in making an addition of Rs. 2,03,87,170/- by considering the fair mark et value of business asset forming part of stock in trade by applying the deeming provisions of section 56(2) (vii) (b) and also ignoring the circumstances involved at the time of purchase where seller had malafide intentions.

5. For these and other ground which may be raised during or before the appeal is heard. It is prayed that the relief be granted.”

3. The additional ground raised by the assessee read as under :

“1. The learned CIT(A)/A.O. erred in making an addition of Rs.2,03,87,170/- by applying the provisions of Section 50C when the property was referred to the Valuation Cell and the report was not received till the completion of the assessment proceedings.”

4. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual, derives income from house property and real estate business, filed his return of income for AY 2014-15 on 13.09.2014, declaring a total income of Rs. 1,24,51,960/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and determined the total income at Rs. 6,69,47,580/- by inter alia making addition towards disallowance of excess claim of interest against income from house property for Rs. 5,39,579/- and addition of Rs. 2,37,92,244/- towards difference in capital account of the proprietor, addition of Rs. 97,76,424/- under the head ‘income from capital gains’ towards difference between sale consideration as per the registered sale deed and fair market value of the property, as per the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and addition of Rs. 2,03,87,170/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 towards the difference between purchase consideration and the stamp duty value of the property as on the date of registration as income from other sources. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged various additions made by the A.O., including the addition towards difference in capital account of the proprietor, addition unde