AJINATH SANTRAM KHARAT,PUNE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), NASHIK, NASHIK

ITA 1771/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Ajinath Santram Kharat against the order of the CIT(A)/Addl.CIT(A) concerning an addition of Rs.8,50,834 under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to the purchase of agricultural land. The assessee contended that the land was not a capital asset and thus the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) should not apply. The initial appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) based on a misunderstanding related to a penalty form under section 271(1)(b), which was not relevant to the assessment order being contested. The Tribunal recognized this error and remanded the case for a fresh decision on the substantive issues raised.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472346 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RATNAKAR SHELAKE
• Assessee Lawyers: HARSHAN NASIKKAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 250

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1771/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ajinath Santram Kharat, Flat No.K-1102, 24 K Stargaze, Koltepatil Developers, Sr.No.76 to 89, Bavdhan, Pune – 411021. PAN: ACXPK5630R V s The Addl./JCIT(A), Panaji. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri harshan Nasikkar– AR Revenue by Shri Ratnakar Shelake – Addl.JCIT(DR) Date of hearing 02/01/2025 Date of pronouncement 31/01/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the Order of Ld.CIT(A)/Addl.CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act ITA No.1771/PUN/2024 [A] 2 for A.Y.2015-16 on 29/04/2024 emanating from the Assessment Order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 27/12/2019. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in upholding addition to the extent of Rs.8,50,834/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the I.T.Act 1961, on account of difference between the actual purchase consideration of agricultural land at Pali, Taluka Sudhagad, Dist. Raigad and the value as per stamp valuation authorities, not appreciating that the land purchased was agricultural land and not being a capital asset, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) were not attracted and that all evidences relied upon were before the ld AO and no additional evidences were filed before Hon CIT(A) and therefore dismissal of this ground by the Hon CIT(A) was not justified and consequent addition be kindly deleted. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and or vary the grounds of appeal at any time before the decision of the appeal.” Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case the Ld.AR has filed a paper book. Ld.AR submitted ITA No.1771/PUN/2024 [A] 3 that the Ld.CIT(A) has erroneously dismissed the Appeal of the assessee filed against Order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 27/12/2019 stating that the Assessee has filed an application under DTVSV. Ld.AR took us through us the order of the Ld.CIT(A) wherein the Ld.CIT(A) has mentioned Form Number 3 having No.923588670281220. Ld.AR took us through the Form Number 3 having number 923588670281220 which is at page 56 of the paper book. Ld.AR demonstrated that the aid form was filed for Penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act , where as the Appeal dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) was against the addition made in the assessment order. We have carefully studied the Ld.CIT(A)’s order and the Form Number 3 of DTVSV. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced here under : ITA No.1771/PUN/2024 [A] 4 ITA No.1771/PUN/2024 [A] 5 ITA No.1771/PUN/2024 [A] 6 3. The perusal of Form No.3 explains that the Form No.3 is for Rs.10,000/- only which is a penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Ld.DR has accepted the facts. Thus there is apparent mistake in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Ld.AR submitted that he had made a petition before ld.Pr.Chief Commissioner[NFAC] along with the Affidavit to correct the mistake apparent from record. However, ld.Pr.CC has not corrected it, hence, Assessee had to file appeal before ITAT. 3.1 We have verified the facts and there is an apparent mistake. Ld.CIT(A) mistakenly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we set- aside the order dated 29/04/2024 for A.Y.2015-16 passed by Ld.CIT(A)/ Addl.CIT(A) to Ld.CIT(A) for de-novo- adjudication. The ld.CIT(A) shall decide the appeal on merits. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. ITA No.1771/PUN/2024 [A] 7 Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 4. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Condonation of Delay : 5. There was a Delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal. We have perused the submission of the assessee and are convinced that there was sufficient cause for delay. Accordingly, we condoned the delay. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31st January, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 31st Jan, 2024/ SGR* आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. ITA No.1771/PUN/2024 [A] 8 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “एस एम सी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. "