MRS. SUREKHA HANUMANTRAO PAWAR,PUNE V. ITO, WARD 14(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 225/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mrs. Surekha Hanumantrao Pawar, the appellant, contesting the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [NFAC], which confirmed various additions to her income for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The primary contention was the incorrect addition of income under various heads including long-term capital gains and income from house property, despite the appellant not receiving any sale consideration. The Assessing Officer had initially added these amounts based on incomplete information regarding a property transaction. The Tribunal found procedural lapses in the lower authorities' handling of the case, particularly in not considering the Assessee's return filed under a different PAN, and thus remanded the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633604 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJITESH KUMAR MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: DIGAMBAR SURWASE
• Keywords: Set aside; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.225/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs.Surekha Hanumantrao Pawar, Sr.No.47, Sunita Nagar, Vadgaon Sheri, Pune - 411014. Maharashtra. V s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(1), Pune. PAN: BHEPP5383D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Digambar Surwase – AR Revenue by Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 10/06/2025 Date of pronouncement 11/06/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the A.Y.2012-13 dated 02.07.2024. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.225/PUN/2025 [A] 2 “1. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, the learned CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in dismissing the appeal of appellant for non- prosecution. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief. 2. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, the learned CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in confirming addition made by learned AO of Rs.83,84,516/-. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief. 3. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.78,75,000/- as long-term capital gain even though no consideration was received by appellant. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief. 4. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.4,00,260/- under the head income from house property. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief. 5. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,09,256/- under the head business or profession. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” Findings and Analysis : 3. We have heard Ld.AR for the Assessee and Ld.DR for the Revenue, perused the records. There was a delay in filling appeal. In the interest of justice, we condone the delay. 3.1 In this case in the Assessment Order the Assessing Officer has noted that Assessee had not filed Return of Income for AY 2012-13. The Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order has noted that Income tax Department received Information regarding sale of immovable property by the assessee during the year vide Document ITA No.225/PUN/2025 [A] 3 Number 6480/2011 for Rs.3,93,75,000/-. The relevant paragraph 3 of the Assessment Order is reproduced here as under : “03. As per the information available with the department, the assessee has entered into an immovable property transaction of Rs.3,93,75,000/-. The sale consideration received is not clear from the agreement and the assessee has not made any submission. Further, the assessee has not claimed any cost of acquisition or indexation benefit. Therefore, assessee being one of the five sellers, 1/5th of the sale consideration of Rs.3,93,75,000/- amounting to Rs.78,75,000/- is added to the total income of the assessee under the head income Long Term Capital Gain. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately for concealment of income.” 4. Thus, in the Assessment Order the AO has mentioned that Sale Consideration received is not clear. However, we have noted that in the Sale Deed dated 29/12/2011 (page 48-74 of Paper book) the entire details of Sale, immovable property and sale consideration are mentioned. On perusal of the said Sale Deed it is observed that Mr.Vithalrao S. Derange, Dattatray S. Derange, Manisha V Pathare, Surekha H Pawar, Sadhana Raju Jagtap appears as Vendors or Sellers. It is the pleading of the Assessee that the Assessee was mere consenting party and Assessee never received any consideration. ITA No.225/PUN/2025 [A] 4 However, it is also a fact that Assessee’s name appears as Vendor. As per the Report filed by the Ld.DR, the Vendor Number-1 Mr. Vitthalrao Shripati Derange PAN APXPD2691C had not filed Return of Income for A.Y.2012-13. Mr.Dattatray Sambhaji Dherange and Manisha Vasant Pathare the other two Vendor, had filed Return for A.Y.2012-13. It is observed that neither the Assessing Officer nor the ld.CIT(A) has appreciated the facts properly. However, it is an admitted fact by the Ld.AR that Assessee was having TWO PAN Numbers at that point of time. Ld.AR filed copy of return of Income filed by the Assessee for AY 2012-13 with PAN ACMPP8531F. The present appeal pertains to the Assessment Order having PAN BHEPP5383D. Therefore, the AO had no opportunity to verify the contents of the Return filed by the assessee. 4.1 In these facts and circumstances of the case, as requested by the Ld.AR, we set aside the impugned Assessment Order to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication. The AO shall provide opportunity to the Assessee and Assessee shall file all details before the AO. ITA No.225/PUN/2025 [A] 5 5. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11th June, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (DIPAK P.RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 11 June, 2025/ SGR आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. "