Mohd. Salim Abdul Sattar, Jalna V. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -2, Jalna

ITA 659/PUN/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3550 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.659/PUN/2021 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mohd. Salim Abdul Sattar, At Post Nagewadi, Tq. & Dist. Jalna- 431213. PAN : BNJPM2608B Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Jalna. Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.660/PUN/2021 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Abdul Sattar Abdul Kadar Bawla,, H. No.3538, Bawla Bazar, Old Jalna-431213. PAN : ANNPB7580J Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Jalna. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: These twin assessees’ instant as many appeals; for assessment year 2009-10, arise against the CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad’s separate orders dated 14.01.2019 passed in case no.ABD/CIT(A)- 2/118/2016-17 and ABD/CIT(A)-2/74/2016-17, in proceedings u/s Assessee by : Shri K. Shrinivasan Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date of hearing : 25.07.2022 Date of pronouncement : 25.07.2022 ITA Nos.659 & 660/PUN/2021 2 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”, respectively. Heard the assessees as well as the department. Case files perused. 2. Delay of 59 days each in filing of both these appeals is condoned since falling in Covid-19 pandemic outbreak period. 3. It is straightway noticed at the outset that these twin assessees’ identical sole substantive grievance challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action granting part exemption relief of section 10(37) claim. Both the parties invited my attention to the Assessing Officer’s detailed discussion in these twin assessments dated 19.03.2016 that he had found a portion of lands acquired to be “barren” not eligible for the impugned exemption. 4. Learned counsel reiterated the assessees’ stand adopted throughout the entire chunk(s) of the land acquired was agricultural only. He invited my attention to the detailed paper books forming part of the case records as well as the final award settlement under the provision of land acquisition law that the competent authority had indeed treated the lands in issue as agricultural and not barren at all. This clinching fact has gone un-rebutted from the Revenue’s side. The fact also remains that the learned lower authorities have ITA Nos.659 & 660/PUN/2021 3 nowhere considered the same in their respective orders. Face with this situation, I hereby direct the learned Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the instant issue afresh in the light of the corresponding land acquisition proceedings details within three effective opportunity of hearing. It is made clear that these assessees shall be very much at liberty to raise all legal as well as factual issues in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. 5. These twin assessees’ appeal instant as many appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced on this 25 th day of July, 2022. Sd/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 25 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)-2, Aurangabad. 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Aurangabad. 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.