IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment year: 2017-18)

Girish Bhalchandra Sathe vs Deputy Commissioner of Income

2104 Tower A Parkwoods, G.B. Tax 4(1)(1), Mumbai Road Thane, Maharashtra- Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai-400051

400615 PAN:AAHPS4525R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None Respondent by : Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr DR)

Date of hearing : 10/03/2026 Date of pronouncement : 13/03/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM):

The instant appeal of the assessee preferred against the order of the NFAC Delhi [for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2017-18, date of order 20.11.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit Income-tax Department (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section

147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act date of order 12.05.2023.

2. The assessee has taken the following grounds:

“1. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.11,20,624 u/s 50C, without appreciating that the consideration of Rs.25,00,000 was received in F.Y. 2014 15 and duly offered to tax in A.Y. 2015 16, and therefore no taxable transfer took place in A.Y. 2017 18. 2. The CIT(A) failed to consider that the transfer was completed in F.Y. 2014 15 within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Income tax Act, read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, as possession and rights were transferred pursuant to the earlier agreement.

Consequently, the addition made for A.Y. 2017 18 is untenable.

3. The CIT(A) failed to apply the first proviso to Section 50C, which mandates adoption of stamp duty value as on the date of the agreement when consideration is received earlier through banking channels. The failure to apply this statutory requirement renders the addition unsustainable.

4. The CIT(A) erred in ignoring the sale agreement, documentary evidence of earlier receipt, and the ITR for A.Y. 2015-16, all of which were submitted during the assessment and appellate proceedings.

5. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition without directing the AO to make a reference to the Valuation Officer u/s 50C(2), despite the appellant disputing the applicability of Section 50C and the valuation adopted by the stamp authority.

6. The CIT(A) erred in passing the order without granting an adequate opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

7. The assessment order and the appellate order are bad in law, void ab initio, and liable to be quashed, as the AO failed to examine the year of transfer under Section 2(47) r.w.s. Section 53A failed to apply the first proviso to Section 50C and mechanically invoked Section 50C without following the statutory procedure.

8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, OR withdraw any ground of appeal on OR before the date of hearing.”

3. When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent the case, nor was any application for adjournment filed. On perusal of the record, we find that the appeal was earlier fixed for hearing on

04.03.2026, on which date the Learned Authorised Representative (Ld. AR) appeared and sought an adjournment. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to today’s date on the written request of the Ld. AR. However, on the date fixed for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee. In view of the above circumstances, and considering the nature of the dispute, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee, after hearing the Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) and on the basis of the material available on record.

4. We have heard the submissions of the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The assessee had sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.25,00,000/-. However, the stamp duty value of the said property was R