आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद (cid:8)यायपीठ ‘A’ अहमदाबाद।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ]

BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1592/Ahd/2025 Asstt.Year : 2012-13 Shri Rajesh Narendrabhai Patel ITO, Ward-1(2)(2)

Baroda Bolt & Engineering Works Vadodara.

Opp: Lalbaug Atitigruh Pratapnagar Vadodara PAN : ACQPP 6089 C (Applicant) (Responent)

Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR सुनवाई क(cid:9) तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/10/2025 घोषणा क(cid:9) तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated

30.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] for the Assessment Year 2012-13, arising from the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] by the Assessing Officer, Ward 1(2)(2), Vadodara [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”], dated 22.11.2019.

2. Facts of the Case

2.1 The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from house property, capital gains and income from other sources. The return of income for the year under consideration was not originally filed. Subsequently, the case was reopened by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act on 26.03.2019, and in response, the assessee filed return of income on 29.04.2019, declaring total income of Rs.15,24,000/-, which included income from house property at Rs.15,54,000/- and showing capital gains at NIL after claiming indexed cost of acquisition.

2.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had sold immovable property situated at Kasba RS No. 685/1, PCS Sheet No. 142, VV-4 CS 2895/1/A, Manjalpur, Vadodara, for a declared sale consideration of Rs.90,00,000/-.

2.3 Against this, the assessee claimed indexed cost of acquisition aggregating to Rs.1,16,06,585/-, thereby declaring NIL capital gain. On verification of the sale deed, the AO observed that stamp duty of Rs.14,72,900/- had been paid on the transaction, and as per jantri value, the fair market value of the property worked out to Rs.3,00,58,895/-, as against the consideration of Rs.90,00,000/-

shown by the assessee.

2.4 The AO issued notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1), calling for necessary details, and also issued show-cause notices drawing attention to discrepancies in the computation. The AO examined the details of indexed cost claimed by the assessee. The assessee had claimed land cost at Rs.34,30,674/- in F.Y. 2004-05, whereas on verification of purchase records, the actual cost of land including purchase price, stamp duty, registration and incidental expenses aggregated to Rs. 27,67,465/- with purchase date being 07.07.2006. Similarly, construction cost claimed at Rs.37,64,113/- across different years (F.Y. 2005-06 to 2008-09) was not fully substantiated with supporting evidence. Show-cause was issued proposing restriction of indexed cost. In respect of claim of deduction under section 54, the assessee had claimed exemption of Rs. 53,78,500/- on investment in purchase of a residential property in the name of his wife, Smt. Shreya Rajesh Patel. The AO noted that although the assessee had made the payment, the property was not purchased in his own name, and hence, as per the plain reading of section 54, the claim was not admissible.

2.5 On assessee’s objection to adoption of jantri value, the matter was referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer under section 50C(2). The Valuation Officer determined the value of the property at Rs.1,67,82,104/-. Thereafter, the AO recomputed the long-term capital gain as under: