KALURAM KONDIBA GHORE,PUNE V. ITO, WARD-7(3), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 2072/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Kaluram Kondiba Ghore, the appellant, who contested an order from the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, which upheld an addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000 as long-term capital gain on the sale of agricultural land. The appellant argued that the land should be exempt from capital gains tax under section 10(37) of the ITA, 1961, as it was agricultural land. Additionally, the appellant claimed eligibility for exemption under section 54F of the ITA, 1961. The Tribunal noted the appellant's health issues and absence during previous hearings as reasons for not contesting the CIT(A)'s decision earlier, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 845333 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 02-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT V. B C Srinivasa Setty-128 ITR 294 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONAL L SONKAVDE
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHOR B PHADKE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Capital asset; Reasonable cause; Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 54F; 2(14)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण \"ए \"न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"A\" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANT PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं / ITA No.2072/PUN/2025 धििाारण वषा /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kaluram Kondiba Ghore Flat No. 18, Trimurti Apartment, Punyainagar, Pune City, Pune Dhankawadi-411043 Maharashtra PAN-AOOPK9600C Vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Pune अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee by: Shri Kishor B Phadke Department by: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl-CIT Date of hearing: 03-02-2026 Date of Pronouncement: 17-03-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by Ld. [CIT(A)] NFAC, Delhi for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. The learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as long-term capital gain as made by the learned AO vide order u/s 143(3). Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.2072/PUN/2025 2. The Appellant contends that, the Appellant is keen to ensure complete and total compliance as required, and the present situation is simply a fall-out of a communication gap and has been glossed over due to various reasons. As such, Appellant contends that the present order may please be set aside and the case ought to be decided on the merits. 3. The learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in confirming the addition made by the learned AO and in considering the said land as a capital asset and thereby failed to appreciate that the said land is an agricultural land as specified u/s 2(14) of the ITA, 1961 and capital gain arising from sale of such land is exempt as per the provisions of section 10(37) of ITA, 1961. 4. Alternatively, the learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition in not appreciating that capital gain of a transferred capital asset can't be worked out unless any cost of acquisition / improvement is allowed as a deduction from the full value of consideration. As such, the appellant contends that the learned AO erred in not appreciating that taxation of gross consideration is not envisaged as taxable capital gains considering the ratio laid down by the apex court in the case of CIT V. B C Srinivasa Setty-128 ITR 294 (SC). 5. On an alternate and without prejudice basis to the above grounds, the appellant contends that the appellant is eligible for exemption u/s 54F of the ITA, 1961 and as such the same ought to be granted to the appellant while computing taxable income of the appellant. 6. The appellant craves leave to add/modify/ amend /delete all / any of the grounds of appeal. 3. There is delay in filing of this appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.2072/PUN/2025 supported by an affidavit that the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing learned DR we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits of the case. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is an individual and has furnished its return of income on 23rd July 2016 by declaring total income of Rs. 2,04,100/- The return was processed under section 143(1) of the IT act. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the IT act were issued to the assessee. After considering the reply of the assessee, wherein it was stated that the assessee has sold his agricultural land for Rs. 1 crore on 3rd July 2015 and claimed exempt income of Rs. 1 crore, the assessing officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the IT act and vide order dated 28th December 2018, determining the total income at Rs. 1,02,04,100/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs. 1 crore being long-term gain arising on sale of land. 5. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Since the assessee remained absent learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.2072/PUN/2025 6. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal. 7. We have heard learned counsel’s from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assesse. In this regard we find that the assessee is a senior citizen and an agriculturist and was suffering from various ailments and was under treatment of doctors. It is the sole contention of learned counsel of the assesse that due to above medical reasons the assessee could not give attention to the notices issued by learned CIT(A) which resulted in unfortunate ex parte order by learned CIT(A) and therefore it was prayed before the bench that the matter may kindly be restored back to the file of learned CIT(A) so that the assessee can substantiate the grounds of appeal. 8. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into the merits of the case we deem it appropriate to set aside the ex parte order passed by learned CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file with a direction to decide the appeal afresh and as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by learned CIT(A) and also directed to produce evidences, documents and submissions in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext otherwise learned Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.2072/PUN/2025 CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law . The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 17th day of March, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAMA KANT PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ददिांक / Dated : 17th March, 2026. Neeta आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr.CIT/CIT concerned. 4. धवभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “A” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. गार्ा फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER, // True Co// Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "