PHULCHAND RAMGOPAL AGARWAL LEGAL HEIR MR.PRADEEP AGARWAL,MUMBAI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

MA 266/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the assessment year 2018-19, where the assessee, Phulchand Ramgopal Agarwal, contested the timing of tax liability related to a property purchase. The assessee argued that substantial payments made in the financial year 2010-11 should entitle him to tax benefits in that year, despite the formal agreement being registered in 2011. The Tribunal had previously ruled against this claim, leading to the filing of a Miscellaneous Application by the assessee, which was also dismissed. The Tribunal's decision emphasized that the rights to the property, including tax liabilities, were only vested upon the execution of the agreement in 2011, not earlier.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833417 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 08-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Radha Kishan Kungwani vs. ITO in ITA No. 1106/JP/2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ADITYA M. RAI
• Assessee Lawyers: SHANKARLAL JAIN
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 2(14)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No.266/MUM/2025 [Arising out of ITA No. 2960/MUM/2025] Assessment Year: 2018-19 Phulchand Ramgopal Agarwal, L/H – Mr. Pradeep Agarwal 254B, Nirlon House, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai– 400 030, Maharashtra v/s. बनाम Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(3), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAJPA9414F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Shankarlal Jain, CA Respondent by : Shri Aditya M. Rai, (Sr. AR) Date of Hearing 14.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.02.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- 1. This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the assessee for recalling of the Tribunal order dated 06.08.2025 passed in ITA No. 2960/Mum/2025 for A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The assessee has stated in his application that he agreed to purchase a flat for Rs 5,84,00,000/- and 1stpayments for the same made on 27.09.2010 of Rs.3,47,00,000/- and Rs. 79,00,000/- on 31.01.2011. Total payment prior to date of Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 MA No. 266/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 Phulchand Ramgopal Agarwal, L/H – Mr. Pradeep Agarwal, Mumbai registration was Rs.4,26,00,000/-. The agreement for purchase was formalised on 04.04.2011, the schedule in Purchase Agreement total payment of Rs.4,26,00,000/- acknowledged. Total cost of the flat was Rs. 6,28,48,800/-. The assessee claimed that it acquired interest in Flat Purchased in F.Y. 2010-11 as substantial payment Rs.4,26,00,000/- made in that year while the AO treated interest acquired in flat in the year of agreement FY.2011-12 year in which agreement was registered. The appellant submitted a certificate from the Builder to confirm that Unit no 4174 of the Building was allotted to the appellant on 23.08.2010 and payment Rs 3.47 cr. was received on 28.09.2010.In the written submission filed reliance was placed on Radha Kishan Kungwani vs. ITO in ITA No. 1106/JP/2018, dt. 19th Aug., 2020, decision was summarized as “the facts are in Para 7 facts: sale agreement 16.09.14 first payment 10.10.2010 & 14.10.2010 Bench held pg 5 that in Final Agreement in payment schedule payments made prior to Agreement are recoded. Payments are by cheques, on pg. 6 the Hon Bench concluded that cheque payment establish booking even there is no separate agreement as registered agreement refers payments.”It was further submitted in written submission that “An agreement is merely an understanding of agreed facts which can be ascertained even by conduct. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 MA No. 266/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 Phulchand Ramgopal Agarwal, L/H – Mr. Pradeep Agarwal, Mumbai 2. Thus, it was submitted that, even no written agreement, an agreement to acquire flat can be ascertained from the fact of 1st payment made for purchase and acknowledged in Purchase Agreement in F.Y.2010-11. The understanding of agreed facts can be ascertained even by conduct, even if there is no written allotment letter/agreement. Appellant drew Hon Bench attention to the certificate from the Builder to confirm that Unit no 4174 of the Building was allotted to the Appellant on 23.08.2010 and payment of Rs 3.47 cr. received on 28.09.2010 as filled in PB at pg 23. 3. The Hon Bench held in para 6 “We have carefully considered all the relevant facts of the case and find that although initial two payments aggregating to Rs 4.26 cr. were made in the FV.2010-11, the actual agreement was entered into only on 04.04.2011. Not even an allotment letter seems to have been issued to the assessee on making initial payments as evident from the contentions made and duly considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, there is no basis for claiming that the assessee became entitled to all interest, title, claims which shall be binding on the other party it is only on execution of the agreement dated 04.04.2011 that such rights were vested in the assessee and not before it. The word “held” used in section 2(14) as well as Explanation to section 48 of the Act clearly depicts that assessee must have some right in the capital asset which is subject to transfer which is absolutely lacking in the instant case. We further find that none of the case laws relied upon lay down that only on the basis of payments without support of any allotment letter or agreement, the assessee would be become rightful owner in the said property. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the matter and uphold the appellate order.” 4 It was submitted that Bench has not considered confirmation as issued by the builder of having allotted flat on 23.08.2010 and 1st payment was received on 28.09.2010. It is submitted Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 MA No. 266/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 Phulchand Ramgopal Agarwal, L/H – Mr. Pradeep Agarwal, Mumbai that non consideration of said Confirmation by Builder is a mistake apparent on record and prayed to be rectified u/s 254(2) of the Act. 5. On careful consideration of the contents of this application vis- a-vis the order passed by us, we find that there is no mistake apparent from the record in as much the order was passed taking into consideration all materials facts including submissions of the assessee. Concurring with the request of the assessee for rectification would amount to review of the said order which is not permitted under the law. Therefore, in the absence of any mistake apparent from records and there being no merit in the MA, we dismiss the same. 6. In the result, Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- SANDEEP GOSAIN PRABHASH SHANKAR (न्याययक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai ददनाुंक /Date 03.02.2026 Lubhna Shaikh / Steno Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 5 MA No. 266/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 Phulchand Ramgopal Agarwal, L/H – Mr. Pradeep Agarwal, Mumbai आदेश की प्रयियलयि अग्रेयिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावपि प्रवि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अयिकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com "