LATA PRALHAD DESHMUKH,NASHIK V. CIT(A), PUNE

ITA 2035/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Lata Pralhad Deshmukh, the appellant, who received compensation from the Nashik Municipal Corporation for land acquired for road widening, amounting to Rs. 2,22,26,400. The appellant claimed this amount as exempt from income tax under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR). However, the Central Processing Centre (CPC) in Bengaluru did not consider this exempt income in their intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, nor did they account for the TDS of Rs. 2,22,264 deducted by the Nashik Municipal Corporation. The rectification application filed by the appellant was dismissed, leading to the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, which was also dismissed for lack of sufficient documentary evidence. The appellant then approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which also dismissed the appeal due to non-submission of any new evidence or arguments contrary to those previously considered.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775527 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2023-2024
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RATNAKAR BHIMRAO SHELAKE
• Keywords: TDS; Rectification of order; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2035/PUN/2024 Assessment year : 2023-24 Lata Pralhad Deshmukh Plot No.03, Survey No.777/3/2/3, Aryan Bunglow, Karmyogi Nagar, Nashik – 422008 Vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Nashik PAN: AARPD7295D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake Date of hearing : 09-09-2025 Date of pronouncement : 09-09-2025 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.07.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2022-23. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. A perusal of the order sheet entries shows that this appeal was fixed for hearing a number of times but no one was appearing in the last 4 occasions starting from 19.12.2024 till 17.06.2025. It was further seen that due non-appearance of anyone on 17.06.2025 the case was adjourned to 09.09.2025. However, today also when the name of the assessee was called, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment of the case has been filed. Under these circumstances, we Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.2035/PUN/2024 deem it proper to decide this appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR. 3. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee against the rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 13.07.2022 declaring total income of Rs.70,890/- and claiming refund of Rs.2,25,370/-. The assessee during the financial year 2021-22 relevant to assessment year 2022-23 had received an amount of Rs.2,22,26,400/- from the Nashik Municipal Corporation against compulsory acquisition of their land for road widening, the details of which are as under: No. Details of property Amount of consideration (Rs.) 1 S.No. 201/C/2, Pimpalgaon Bahula, Nashik 74,83,200/- 2 S.No.222/A, Pimpalgaon Bahula, Nashik 1,47,43,200/- 2,22,26,400/- 5. The assessee claimed the said amount as exempt from tax. The CPC, Bengaluru in the intimation passed u/s 143(1) did not consider the exempt income of Rs.2,22,26,400/- and TDS thereon of Rs.2,22,264/-. The rectification application filed by the assessee was dismissed by the CPC. The assessee Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.2035/PUN/2024 thereafter filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC who dismissed the same by observing as under: “4. Decision The appellant has raised 4 grounds in appeal. The ground no 1 to 4 pertain to only one issue that AO has not considered compensation of Rs.2,22,26,400/- as exempt income and nor considered TDS deducted by Nasik Municipal Corporation of Rs.2,22,264/-. 4.1 I have gone through the facts of the case and have the following observations: The appellant e-filed her return of income for A.Y 2022-23 on 13.07.2022 declaring total income at Rs.70,890/- and claimed refund of Rs.2,25,370. The return of income was processed by the CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act on 25.10.2022 accepting total income but issued a refund of Rs.1,270/-. The appellant filed rectification application to rectify the mistake. The rectification application was processed on 02.05.2023 by passing an order u/s 154 of the Act without making any correction in order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The appellant again filed rectification application u/s 154 on 23.06.2023 and the same was processed on 23.06.2023 by passing order u/s 154 without any correction. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order passed u/s 154 of the Act dated 23.06 2023 4.2 In appeal proceedings, appellant has submitted that during the F.Y. 2021- 22, appellant had received consideration from Nasik Municipal Corporation against compulsory acquisition of land for road widening. The details of the property for which compensation was received is as under: Sr. No. Details of property Amount of consideration (Rs.) 1 S.No. 201/C/2, Pimpalgaon Bahula, Nashik 74,83,200/- 2 S.No.222/A, Pimpalgaon Bahula, Nashik 1,47,43,200/- 2,22,26,400/- The appellant has submitted that the above compensation is exempt under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR). The appellant has submitted that we have claimed the compensation of Rs.2,22,26,400/- as exempt income and TDS deducted by Nashik Municipal Corporation of Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.2035/PUN/2024 Rs.2,22,264/- was claimed as refund. The Income Tax Department has passed intimation order under section 143(1) wherein it has considered total income of Rs.70,890/- and issued refund of Rs.1,270/- with considering the exempt income of Rs.2,22,26,400/- and TDS thereon of Rs.2,22,264/-. The appellant has furnished copy of Circular No. 36/2016 of CBDT and mentioned that \"the RECTLARR Act” which came into effect from 1st January 2014 in section 96 inter alia provides that Income Tax shall not be levied on any award or agreement made under the RECTLARR Act. 4.3 I have carefully considered the rival submissions and material made available on record. On perusal of written reply it is noticed that appellant's contention is prima facie correct that compensation received on land acquisition as mentioned above in exempt from Income Tax. However it is also noticed form record that appellant was provided sufficient opportunities to furnish documentary evidences in support of ground of appeal. In appellate proceedings, appellant has furnished copy of order passed u/s 143(1), copy of rectification order u/s 154 and copy of Circular No. 36/2015. The appellant has failed to furnish copy of ITR filed for A.Y. 2022-23 to establish that receipt of Rs.2,22,26,400/- was claimed as exempt income, copy of Form No. 26AS reflecting availability of TDS credit for the year under consideration, copy of documents showing compulsory acquisition of land by Nasik Municipal Corporation during the year. As such, mere filing written submission cannot be considered sufficient enough in support of grounds of appeal. So, I am constrained to uphold the rectification order passed u/s 154 by the AO CPC for want of documentary evidences as well as on merit too. In the circumstances, the grounds of appeal of the appellant are dismissed. The grounds No. 1 to 4 is dismissed. 5. Result:- In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that despite number of opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee did not make any submission for which he was constrained to uphold the Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.2035/PUN/2024 rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer / CPC u/s 154 of the Act for want of documentary evidence. Even before us also nothing has been filed so as to take a contrary view than the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on this issue. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court at the conclusion of hearing itself i.e. on 9th September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 9th September, 2025 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.2035/PUN/2024 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 09.09.2025 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 09.09.2025 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order Printed from counselvise.com "