IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H(SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment year: 2018-19)

Amit Gajanan Khedekar vs ITO, Ward 22(1)(6), Mumbai

211, 2^nd Floor, Siddhi Sadan, 1^st floor, Piramal Chambers, fitwala Road, Elphistone Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400013 PAN:BQHPK5514P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Nishit Gandhi (virtually appear)

Revenue by : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, (Sr.DR)

Date of hearing : 22/04/2026 Date of pronouncement : 28/04/2026 O R D E R Per:Anikesh Banerjee (JM):

The instant appeal of the assessee filed 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 2018-19, date of order 20.02.2025. The impugned order emanated by the order of the National e- Assessment Centre (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 143(3)

r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act date of order 15.03.2021.

2. The registry informed that the assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 280 days. The assessee filed a notarized affidavit duly executed on 27.03.2026 related to explanation for delay in filing appeal before the ITAT. The Ld. DR had placed his objection to the submissions of the assessee. Upon consideration, we are satisfied that there existed sufficient cause for the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 280 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is taken for adjudication.

3. The brief facts of the case have been duly set out in the impugned appellate order, which are identical to the submissions advanced by the Ld. AR. The same are reproduced hereunder as narrated in the impugned appellate order.

“2.1. The appellant has filed his return of income for the AY 2018-19 declaring a total income of Rs.3,06,810/- The case was selected for Compulsory scrutiny to verify Transaction in Immovable Property" and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 27.09.2020. Notices u/s 142(1) A were issued to the appellant by the AO during the course of assessment proceeding for rights of a Room/Tenement being Room No.214, Second Floor, Siddhi Sadan Building, Fithwala Road, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai for a consideration of Rs.32,50,000/- in a building which is constructed leasehold land which is owned by MHADA and the seller has acquired the rights vide allotment letter dated 06.06.2017 issued by MHADA in favour of the seller. On perusal of the details submitted by the appellant, the AO found that the market value of property determined by the Sub-Registrar was at 53,35,500/- whereas the appellant has paid amount of Rs.32,50,000/- against purchase of property which is lesser to the tune of Rs.20,85,500/-, Hence, the AO invoked provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act. The appellant contended that provisions of Section 56(2)(x) was not applicable in his case as the Room/Tenement purchased is on a leasehold land owned by MHADA and relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Greenfiled Hotels & Estate Pvt.. The AO did not accept the contention put forth by the appellant as the facts and circumstances of the present case is different from the case law relied upon by the appellant. Hence, the AO invoked provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act and treated the difference amount of stamp duty value exceeding consideration paid as Income from Other sources which works out to Rs.20,85,500/- and added the same to the total income of the appellant.”

4. The Ld. AR argued and contended that the assessee has acquired the right of a room/tenement being Room No.214, 2^nd floor, Siddhi Sadan, Building, Fitwala Road, Mumbai-400013, for consideration of Rs.32,50,000/-. The said building is constructed on leasehold land owned by the MHADA. The seller has acquired the rights vide allotment letter dated 06.06.2017 issued by the MHADA in his favor. The Ld. AR argued that the acquisition of room/tenement purchase