ARJAN LILA GORANIYA,PORBANDAR V. ITO WARD 2(4), PORBANDAR

ITA 378/RJT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Arjan Lila Goraniya, the appellant, who contested the addition of Rs. 65,20,805 to his income as unexplained investment in agricultural land under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A). The appellant argued that the investment was funded by compensation received from Reliance Infrastructure Limited for compulsory acquisition of land, a fact supported by documents and similar to a case involving his brother where the addition was deleted. The Tribunal, considering the precedents and the circumstances, ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and deleting the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773019 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Bharatbhai Lilabhai Goraniya vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Unexplained investment; Reopening of assessment; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 148; 144; 271(1)(c); 69

Judgement Text

" आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं Ǔनधा[रणवष[ Arjan Lila Goraniya Inajiya Vadi Vistar, Porbandar Bhojeshwar S.O, Porbandar – 360575 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ (Appellant) Appellant by Respondent by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A Captioned appeal filed by 2013-14, is directed against Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income 30/01/2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by dated 30/10/2018, u/s 144 r.w.s147 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 65,20,805/ account of unexplained i आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,राजकोटÆयायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.378/RJT/2025 Ǔनधा[रणवष[ / Assessment Year: (2013-14) Porbandar Bhojeshwar S.O, Vs. ITO Ward 2 (4), Porbandar - 360575 ./PAN/GIR No.: BBWPG1554P (Respondent) : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. AR : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. : 01/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment , is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) byNational Faceless Appeal Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal , which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer r.w.s147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 65,20,805/ investment u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , Ld. Sr. DR pertaining to Assessment Year of the Income National Faceless Appeal ax (Appeals), dated the Assessing Officer That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 65,20,805/-on Printed from counselvise.com ITA NO. 378/RJT/2025 ARJAN LILA GORANIYA, Page | 2 2. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 3. That, the findings of Ld. CIT(A) are not justified 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the order passed u/s 144 of the I.T.Act, 1961 without giving proper opportunity of being heard. 5. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed the appeal by applying the provision of section 249(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 6. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirm I.T. Act, 1961. 7. That, the Ld. CIT(A) ha 234A/234B/234C/234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 8. That, the appellant craves to add, amend, alter appeal. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee limitation by 429 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The reasons for such delay stating that within 60 days, from the date of receipt of the order of Ld. CIT(A) 30/03/2024. The notice for hearing before the Commissioner Appeals has been served on email id of erstwhile consultant, the consultant duly complied with the notices, however, the consultant failed to inform that the Commissioner of appeals has passed order by confirming the addition made by Therefore, because of the mistake of the tax consultant, such delay has occurred. Besides, assessee is a since past many years and assessee is understand the notices, therefore, That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. That, the findings of Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and bad-in-law. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the order passed u/s 144 of the I.T.Act, 1961 without giving proper opportunity of being heard. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed the appeal by applying the provision of section 249(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the levy of interest charged u/s 234A/234B/234C/234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. That, the appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds by the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14, is barred by days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench The Learned Counsel for the assessee, explained the reasons for such delay stating that the appeal before ITAT, Rajkot is to be from the date of receipt of the order of Ld. CIT(A) he notice for hearing before the Commissioner Appeals has been served on email id of erstwhile consultant, the consultant duly complied with wever, the consultant failed to inform that the Commissioner of appeals has passed order by confirming the addition made by assessing officer. Therefore, because of the mistake of the tax consultant, such delay has occurred. Besides, assessee is a farmer and engaged in agricultural activities and assessee is not techno savvy and educated to read and herefore, delay in filing the appeal is not intentional That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the order passed u/s 144 of the I.T.Act, That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed the appeal by applying the provision of the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the s wrongly confirmed the levy of interest charged u/s any of the above grounds of , is barred by days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench Counsel for the assessee, explained the the appeal before ITAT, Rajkot is to be filed from the date of receipt of the order of Ld. CIT(A), that is, on he notice for hearing before the Commissioner Appeals has been served on email id of erstwhile consultant, the consultant duly complied with wever, the consultant failed to inform that the Commissioner of assessing officer. Therefore, because of the mistake of the tax consultant, such delay has nd engaged in agricultural activities not techno savvy and educated to read and is not intentional. Printed from counselvise.com ITA NO. 378/RJT/2025 ARJAN LILA GORANIYA, Page | 3 4. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee, for donation of delay and stated that delay should not be condoned on such flimsy reasons. 5. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. I note that of assessee was on account of mistake of accountant of assessee under wrong belief. Hence, mistake on the part of accountant cannot put assessee to jeopardy and assessee cannot be penalize reasonable cause to condone affidavit for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal. Having heard both the parties and after having gone well the delay condonation, application, I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. I, accordingly, condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 6. On merit, brief facts of the issue in dispute are stated as under. assessment proceedings, as per data made available with the noticed by the assessing officer immovable property with one other co property is Rs. 1,30,41,610/ 6,05,000/,Registration fees of Rs. 1,23,140/ addition to amount paid to seller party of Rs. 1,23,13,140/ assessee in the property comes to Rs. 65,20,805/ absence of any reply from the assessee, amount invested purchase of this property was investment u/s 69 of the I.T A.Y. 2013-14. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee, for donation of delay and stated that delay should not be condoned on 5. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. I note that of assessee was on account of mistake of accountant of assessee under wrong belief. Hence, mistake on the part of accountant cannot put assessee to jeopardy and assessee cannot be penalized for same. This can be considered as to condone the delay. I note that the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal. Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the affidavit as well the delay condonation, application, I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. I, accordingly, and admit the appeal for hearing. facts of the issue in dispute are stated as under. s per data made available with the Department by the assessing officer that assessee has made investment in the immovable property with one other co-owner. The value of investment in the property is Rs. 1,30,41,610/-, which include stamp duty of Rs. 6,05,000/,Registration fees of Rs. 1,23,140/-, copying charges of Rs. 330/ addition to amount paid to seller party of Rs. 1,23,13,140/- and share of the ssessee in the property comes to Rs. 65,20,805/-( 50% of Rs. 1,30,41,610/ absence of any reply from the assessee, amount invested, Rs. 65,20,805/ was treated by the assessing officer, as unexplained T. Act and treated as income of the assessee for the On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee, for donation of delay and stated that delay should not be condoned on 5. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. I note that the failure of assessee was on account of mistake of accountant of assessee under wrong belief. Hence, mistake on the part of accountant cannot put assessee to jeopardy for same. This can be considered as the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal. through the affidavit as well the delay condonation, application, I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. I, accordingly, During the epartment, it was that assessee has made investment in the r. The value of investment in the which include stamp duty of Rs. , copying charges of Rs. 330/-, in and share of the ( 50% of Rs. 1,30,41,610/-). In Rs. 65,20,805/-, in as unexplained Act and treated as income of the assessee for the Printed from counselvise.com ITA NO. 378/RJT/2025 ARJAN LILA GORANIYA, Page | 4 7. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT made by the assessing officer therefore, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that of investment for purchasing Reliance Infrastructure Limited compulsory acquisition of land bank statement and other documents to prove this fact that assessee had received the amount by way of compulsory acquisition of land by Reliance infrastructure Limited. The amount so received, from reliance infrastructure Limited was invested by the assessee to purchase assessee has explained the source to purchase another property. Hence addition should not be made in the hands of the assessee. 9. Learned Counsel further submitted that in the case of assessee`s, brother, who has also received the amount from Reliance Infrastructure Limited, on account of compulsory acquisition of land and considering this fact, the learned CIT(A) in the assessee`s brother case, the addition was deleted. Therefore, the learned Counsel stated that the issue under the order of the learned CIT(A), in the assessee`s brother`s case, where the addition was deleted by the learned CIT(A), on the same facts and circumstances, as that of assessee, under consideration. of the assessee, the addition so made by the assessing officer, may also be deleted. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A), who has confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee, therefore, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that of investment for purchasing the property was sale consideration received Reliance Infrastructure Limited at Rs. 67,95,024/-, on 16.03.2012 compulsory acquisition of land. The assessee submitted before the Bench, the and other documents to prove this fact that assessee had received the amount by way of compulsory acquisition of land by Reliance The amount so received, from reliance infrastructure Limited was invested by the assessee to purchase such property, therefore assessee has explained the source to purchase another property. Hence addition should not be made in the hands of the assessee. 9. Learned Counsel further submitted that in the case of assessee`s, brother, the amount from Reliance Infrastructure Limited, on account of compulsory acquisition of land and considering this fact, the learned CIT(A) in the assessee`s brother case, the addition was deleted. Therefore, the learned Counsel stated that the issue under consideration is squarely covered by the order of the learned CIT(A), in the assessee`s brother`s case, where the addition was deleted by the learned CIT(A), on the same facts and circumstances, as that of assessee, under consideration. Therefore, in the of the assessee, the addition so made by the assessing officer, may also be 7. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the the addition and dismissed the appeal of the assessee, Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that the source was sale consideration received from on 16.03.2012, by The assessee submitted before the Bench, the and other documents to prove this fact that assessee had received the amount by way of compulsory acquisition of land by Reliance The amount so received, from reliance infrastructure such property, therefore assessee has explained the source to purchase another property. Hence addition 9. Learned Counsel further submitted that in the case of assessee`s, brother, the amount from Reliance Infrastructure Limited, on account of compulsory acquisition of land and considering this fact, the learned CIT(A) in the assessee`s brother case, the addition was deleted. Therefore, the consideration is squarely covered by the order of the learned CIT(A), in the assessee`s brother`s case, where the addition was deleted by the learned CIT(A), on the same facts and Therefore, in the hands of the assessee, the addition so made by the assessing officer, may also be Printed from counselvise.com ITA NO. 378/RJT/2025 ARJAN LILA GORANIYA, Page | 5 10.On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 11. I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of t ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. advanced by the learned Counsel for the assessee to the effect that the issue under consideration is squarely covered by the case of asses where, based on the same facts and circumstances, the learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition. That is, share, the learned CIT(A)had assessee should be allowed findings of the learned CIT Bharatbhai Lilabhai Goraniya BBWPG1849K,Date of Order “5. Going through the facts of the present case, grounds of appeal & assessment order it is found that the appellant had made investment in purchase of agriculture land at Visavada Village via purchase agreement on 27th April, 2012 of R 1,30,41,610/- consisting of Rs. 1,23,13,140/ 6,05,000/- stamp duty plus Rs. 1,23,140/ charges. The said investment was made with the joint holder Mr. Arjanbhai Lilabhai Goraniya. Therefore, the share of appellant is 50% which comes to Rs.65,20,810/ the absence of non-compliance of the appellant, AO made addition of Rs. 65,20,805/ on account of unexplained investment for the purchase of agricultural land u/s 69 of the Act. However, on perusal of written reply along with documents, it is found that the investment made in purchased of agriculture land at Visavada Village Taluka Porbandar, Dist. Jamnagar of Rs. 65,20,810/ Reliance Industries Limited approx. 4.58 acre under compulsory acquisition by Gujarat Government for Reliance On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. I find merit in the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the assessee to the effect that the issue under consideration is squarely covered by the case of assessee`s brother, where, based on the same facts and circumstances, the learned CIT(A) has That is, in assessee`s, brother case, who was holding 50% )had deleted the addition, therefore, appeal of the ould be allowed based on the same facts and circumstances. CIT(A) in the case of assessee`s brother, namely, Shri Bharatbhai Lilabhai Goraniya, for Assessment Year, 2013-14, having, Date of Order ,24/12/2024, are as follows: Going through the facts of the present case, grounds of appeal & assessment order it is found that the appellant had made investment in purchase of agriculture land at Visavada Village via purchase agreement on 27th April, 2012 of R consisting of Rs. 1,23,13,140/- purchase consideration plus Rs. stamp duty plus Rs. 1,23,140/- registration fees plus Rs.330/ charges. The said investment was made with the joint holder Mr. Arjanbhai Lilabhai Therefore, the share of appellant is 50% which comes to Rs.65,20,810/ compliance of the appellant, AO made addition of Rs. 65,20,805/ on account of unexplained investment for the purchase of agricultural land u/s 69 of ever, on perusal of written reply along with documents, it is found that the investment made in purchased of agriculture land at Visavada Village Taluka Porbandar, Dist. Jamnagar of Rs. 65,20,810/- is out of amount received from Reliance Industries Limited, Jamnagar for sale of agriculture land at Kanalus Village approx. 4.58 acre under compulsory acquisition by Gujarat Government for Reliance On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case he case including the findings of the I find merit in the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the assessee to the effect that the issue see`s brother, where, based on the same facts and circumstances, the learned CIT(A) has who was holding 50% therefore, appeal of the based on the same facts and circumstances. The , namely, Shri , having, PAN No. Going through the facts of the present case, grounds of appeal & assessment order it is found that the appellant had made investment in purchase of agriculture land at Visavada Village via purchase agreement on 27th April, 2012 of Rs. purchase consideration plus Rs. registration fees plus Rs.330/- copying charges. The said investment was made with the joint holder Mr. Arjanbhai Lilabhai Therefore, the share of appellant is 50% which comes to Rs.65,20,810/-In compliance of the appellant, AO made addition of Rs. 65,20,805/-, on account of unexplained investment for the purchase of agricultural land u/s 69 of ever, on perusal of written reply along with documents, it is found that the investment made in purchased of agriculture land at Visavada Village Taluka is out of amount received from , Jamnagar for sale of agriculture land at Kanalus Village approx. 4.58 acre under compulsory acquisition by Gujarat Government for Reliance Printed from counselvise.com ITA NO. 378/RJT/2025 ARJAN LILA GORANIYA, Page | 6 Industries, Jamnagar, which was received from Reliance Industries, Jamnagar on 16th March, 2012 before few days fro Further on perusal of rejoinder application of the appellant addressed to CIT(A), Jamnagar dated 20.02.2020 received on 24.02.2020, it is found that vide letter No. SRT/TTO/Ward-2(4), Porbandar/ Remand has submitted remand report to CIT(A), Jamnagar in compliance of letter no. CIT(A)/ Jam/Remand Report/ALG/2019 11.11.2019. During the proceeding, vide DIN No. LTBA/ 25/1071288209(1) dated 17.12.2024, copy of previous remand report has been called for & same has been furnished by the AO on 20.12.2024, AO has stated as here under: 6. Looking to the above facts the contention of the assessee that the source investment for purchasing an agricultural land was sale consideration received from Reliance Infrastructure Limited was Rs. 67,95,024/ acquisition of land) as per bank statement submitted by the assessee is found to be correct and justifiable. In view of the aforesaid remand report, facts and circumstances of the present case, I have thoughtfully perused the relevant documents available on record, I find substance in explanation of appellant and addition of Rs. 65,20,805/ the Act is unsustainable and is hereby ordered to be deleted. The appellant's relevant grounds of appeal are allowed. allowed. 12. I have gone through the above findings of the learned that learned CIT(A) had deleted the addition in the hands of assessee`s brother, taking into account the money received on account of compulsory acquisition of land, by the Reliance Infrastructure Limited.O of the case, I am of the view that the assessee under consideration. should be treated, on the same footing authorities have deleted the addition holder of 50% land and assessee`s brother is also holder of 50% land, and the said land was acquired by the Reliance Infrastructure Limited, by way of compulsory acquisition. Both these brothers received by them from Reliance Infrastructure Limited, to purchase another property, and addition made in the hands of assessee`s brother was deleted by Industries, Jamnagar, which was received from Reliance Industries, Jamnagar on 16th March, 2012 before few days from the investment made in new agriculture land. Further on perusal of rejoinder application of the appellant addressed to CIT(A), Jamnagar dated 20.02.2020 received on 24.02.2020, it is found that vide letter No. 2(4), Porbandar/ Remand Report/2019-20/823 dated 17.01.2020, AO has submitted remand report to CIT(A), Jamnagar in compliance of letter no. CIT(A)/ Jam/Remand Report/ALG/2019-20/1004 dated 06.11.2019 received in this office on 11.11.2019. During the proceeding, vide DIN No. LTBA/NAFAC/F/2024 25/1071288209(1) dated 17.12.2024, copy of previous remand report has been called for & same has been furnished by the AO on 20.12.2024, AO has stated as here 6. Looking to the above facts the contention of the assessee that the source investment for purchasing an agricultural land was sale consideration received from Reliance Infrastructure Limited was Rs. 67,95,024/-on 16.03.2012 (by compulsory acquisition of land) as per bank statement submitted by the assessee is found to be In view of the aforesaid remand report, facts and circumstances of the present case, I have thoughtfully perused the relevant documents available on record, I find substance in explanation of appellant and addition of Rs. 65,20,805/- made u/s. 69 of the Act is unsustainable and is hereby ordered to be deleted. The appellant's relevant grounds of appeal are allowed. Resultantly, the appeal of the appellant is hereby I have gone through the above findings of the learned CIT( A) and noticed that learned CIT(A) had deleted the addition in the hands of assessee`s brother, taking into account the money received on account of compulsory acquisition of land, by the Reliance Infrastructure Limited.On same facts and circumstances I am of the view that no any different treatment should be given to the assessee under consideration. That is, the assessee under consideration on the same footing, as the assessee`s, brother, where revenue ve deleted the addition. The assessee, under consideration is holder of 50% land and assessee`s brother is also holder of 50% land, and the said land was acquired by the Reliance Infrastructure Limited, by way of Both these brothers have invested the money so received by them from Reliance Infrastructure Limited, to purchase another property, and addition made in the hands of assessee`s brother was deleted by Industries, Jamnagar, which was received from Reliance Industries, Jamnagar on m the investment made in new agriculture land. Further on perusal of rejoinder application of the appellant addressed to CIT(A), Jamnagar dated 20.02.2020 received on 24.02.2020, it is found that vide letter No. 20/823 dated 17.01.2020, AO has submitted remand report to CIT(A), Jamnagar in compliance of letter no. CIT(A)/ 20/1004 dated 06.11.2019 received in this office on NAFAC/F/2024- 25/1071288209(1) dated 17.12.2024, copy of previous remand report has been called for & same has been furnished by the AO on 20.12.2024, AO has stated as here 6. Looking to the above facts the contention of the assessee that the source of investment for purchasing an agricultural land was sale consideration received from on 16.03.2012 (by compulsory acquisition of land) as per bank statement submitted by the assessee is found to be In view of the aforesaid remand report, facts and circumstances of the present case, I have thoughtfully perused the relevant documents available on record, I find made u/s. 69 of the Act is unsustainable and is hereby ordered to be deleted. The appellant's relevant Resultantly, the appeal of the appellant is hereby CIT( A) and noticed that learned CIT(A) had deleted the addition in the hands of assessee`s brother, taking into account the money received on account of compulsory acquisition of n same facts and circumstances, any different treatment should be given to he assessee under consideration, , where revenue The assessee, under consideration is holder of 50% land and assessee`s brother is also holder of 50% land, and the said land was acquired by the Reliance Infrastructure Limited, by way of have invested the money so received by them from Reliance Infrastructure Limited, to purchase another property, and addition made in the hands of assessee`s brother was deleted by Printed from counselvise.com ITA NO. 378/RJT/2025 ARJAN LILA GORANIYA, Page | 7 the learned CIT(A), therefore, based on the same facts and circumstances, t assessee under consideration, should not be treated differently, that is, same treatment should be given to the assessee, under consideration and hence I delete the addition so made in the hands of the assessee, and allow the appeal of the assessee. 13. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on Rajkot Ǒदनांक/ Date: 22/09/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File the learned CIT(A), therefore, based on the same facts and circumstances, t assessee under consideration, should not be treated differently, that is, same treatment should be given to the assessee, under consideration and hence I delete the addition so made in the hands of the assessee, and allow the appeal 13. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22 / 09/ 2025. Sd/- (Dr. A. L. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (True Copy) By Order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot the learned CIT(A), therefore, based on the same facts and circumstances, the assessee under consideration, should not be treated differently, that is, same treatment should be given to the assessee, under consideration and hence I delete the addition so made in the hands of the assessee, and allow the appeal A. L. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com "