Mrs. Reena Upadhyay, Indore V. The DCIT-1, Bhopal

ITSSA 257/Ind/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2661 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-09-2022
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 69B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T(SS).A. No.257/Ind/2019 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Reena Upadhyay D55-56, Akriti Garden, Nehru Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, Bhopal PAN No.AAYPU8131C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate with Shri Gagan Tiwari, Adv. Respondent by : None Date of Hearing 22.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 28.09.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 03.09.2019 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Bhopal arising out of the order dated 28.01.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Bhopal under section 153A IT(SS)A No.257/Ind/2019 (Smt. Reena Upadhyay vs. DCIT) Asst.Year.– 2012-13 - 2 - r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. In the instant appeal, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.53,14,000/- under Section 69B of the Act in respect of alleged excess investment in purchase of agriculture land. 3. We have heard the Ld.AR. The Ld.DR sought for adjournment today. We have already heard the Ld.DR on 13.09.2022. However, keeping in view of physical Bench after more than 2 years, we decline to allow such adjournment as prayed for. 4. It appears from the records that the assessee is not a purchaser of land rather has entered into the agreement with one R.H.S. Construction for selling of the property in question for a consideration of Rs.51,86,000/- which is evident from the said sale deed annexed to the paper book filed before us. This particular fact though repeatedly brought to the notice of the authorities below but without any result. 5. Having heard that the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the sale deed annexed at page No.61 of the paper book filed before us, we find no merit in the impugned addition made by the Revenue on the ground that the assessee has purchased a land when the facts is completely otherwise. Hence, IT(SS)A No.257/Ind/2019 (Smt. Reena Upadhyay vs. DCIT) Asst.Year.– 2012-13 - 3 - the addition is not found to be sustainable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. The same is deleted. 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 28/09/2022 Sd/- Sd/- (BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Indore; Dated 28/09/2022 S. K. Sinha, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुᲦ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुᲦ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Indore 6. गाडᭅ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Indore