IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.1005/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

Bhupendrabhai Bhikhalal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Moti Khadki, Nr.Vaherai Mota Ward-3, Mandir, Bakrol, Dist: Anand, Anand Gujarat-388315 [PAN No.ANXPP7224K]

(Appellant) .. (Respondent Appellant by : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, ARs Respondent by: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 15.10.2025

O R D E R

PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated

12.02.2025 passed for A.Y. 2012-13.

2. At the outset, we observe that the appeal is time barred by 05 days. The delay of 05 days is condoned on due consideration of facts of assessee’s case and owing to causing no perceptible prejudice to other side.

3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:

“1. Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not considering actual sale consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/- received by the appellant by adopting value as per jantri rates of Rs. 29,65,802/- as deemed value of sale consideration u/s 50C of the Act without referring the valuation to the DVO to ascertain fair market value of the land under consideration without offering any cogent reasons for non-reference to DVO despite of repeated requested of your appellant for reference to DVO for arriving the fair market value of the land under consideration and thus depriving the appellant of the alternative remedial machinery available in the Act. Thus, making an addition of STCG of Rs. 24,53,638/- to the total income of the appellant is illegal, unwarranted and the addition is liable to be deleted.

2. L’nd CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs. 1,75,000/- as income from other sources as commission income without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and this addition of Rs. 1,75,000/- is liable to be deleted.

3. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds of appeal on or before the appeal is finalized.”

4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Bhupendrabhai Bhikhalal Patel, filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 declaring income from agricultural activities, capital gains, and income from other sources. Based on information received from the Sub-Registrar, Anand, the Assessing Officer observed that during the relevant year, the assessee had sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/-, whereas the value adopted by the Sub-Registrar for stamp duty purposes was Rs. 29,65,802/-. Since the assessee had not offered the capital gains arising from the sale of the said property in his return of income, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons, obtained due approval, and reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee was issued several notices under section 142(1) of the Act calling for details of the sale transaction, computation of capital gains, and supporting documents. In response, the assessee initially contended that he had purchased agricultural land on 12.04.2010 for Rs. 4,03,650/- and sold the same on 05.07.2011 for Rs. 10,00,000/-. The assessee argued that since the land was agricultural and had not been converted to non-agricultural use, he believed that capital gains tax was not applicable on sale of such land. The assessee also contended that the Sub-Registrar’s valuation was based on the new jantri rates which came into effect from 01.04.2011 and should not apply to his case as the purchase occurred the assessee an earlier date when the old jantri rates were in force. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the assessee’s explanati