Kishor Gorakhnaht Bhagwat, Pune V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 7 (4), Pune

ITA 1295/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0168 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital Gains
• Section: 54; 143(3); 251

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1295/PUN/2019 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Kishor Gorakhnath Bhagwat, A-103, Suyog Shivalaya, Sinhagad Road, Dattawadi, Pune-411030. PAN : AFAPB9960M Vs. ITO, Ward-7(4), Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 arises against the CIT(A)-8, Pune’s order dated 09.07.2019 passed in case no.PN/CIT(A)-8/ITO. Wd. 7(4)/407/18-19/121 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. Assessee by : Shri M. K. Kulkarni Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date of hearing : 27.07.2022 Date of pronouncement : 27.07.2022 ITA No.1295/PUN/2019 2 2. Coming to the assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground challenging long term capital gains addition of Rs.9,69,438/- made in the course of assessment herein dated 12.12.2011 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order, it emerges at the outset that the assessee had himself agreed to the same as per learned counsel’s endorsement to this effect dated 09.12.2011 during scrutiny (para 4 of assessment). That being the case, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned “agreed” addition. The same stands upheld. 3. Next comes the latter issue of section 54 deduction disallowance of Rs.26,15,958/- made in the CIT(A)’s order by way of enhancement. There could be hardly in dispute that such an addition in the nature of altogether a new head of income in first appellate proceedings goes contrary to the settled legal proposition in CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Union Tyres (1990) 240 ITR 556 (Delhi) and CIT vs. M/s. Sardarilal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Delhi) (FB). The impugned latter addition stands deleted for this precise reason alone. The Revenue’s vehement argument supporting the same are rejected therefore. ITA No.1295/PUN/2019 3 No other argument or ground has been pressed during the course of hearing. 4. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced on this 27 th day of July, 2022. Sd/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 27 th July, 2022. Sujeet (DOC) आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-8, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT-4, Pune. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.