SMT. ANARO DEVI,ALWAR V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

ITA 341/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Anaro Devi, who appealed against the order of the Learned CIT(A), which partly allowed her appeal against the assessment order for the year 2014-15. The Assessing Officer had made two additions to her income: unexplained investment in property amounting to Rs. 49,02,320 and profit on the sale of land amounting to Rs. 2,44,17,300. The CIT(A) deleted the first addition but remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification, while the second addition was upheld. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the second addition, confirming it as an adventure in the nature of trade, and found the appeal on the first addition not maintainable as the matter was still under verification.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126264 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: G.Venkataswami Baidu & Co. vs. CIT, DCIT vs. Gopal Ramarayan Kasat, Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT, P. M. Mohammed Meerakhan v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Smt. Indramani Bai v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITA RINES H
• Assessee Lawyers: TARUN MITTAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Additional evidence; Unexplained investment; Capital receipt; Grounds of appeal; Principal; Remitted; Dismissed; Commissioner; Immovable properties; Commissioner of Income Tax; AMP; Purchases; Transactions; No income; Deleted; Directions; Department; ITES; High Court of Kerala
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 143(2); 69; 69C; 13; 73; 20

Judgement Text

" vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUn dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 341/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Anaro Devi W/o Sh. Madan Lal, Post Baghana, Village- Kasimpur, Tehsil- Kotkasim, Alwar. cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Alwar. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:BSAPD0291F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Tarun Mittal, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR. lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :17/04/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 21/04/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . Present appeal has been filed against order dated 24.01.2024 passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. Vide impugned order, Learned CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal which was filed by her challenging assessment order dated 24.12.2019, passed by the Assessing Officer, relating to the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The Assessing Officer made following two additions:- 2 ITA No. 341/JPR/2024 Smt. Anaro Devi, Alwar  Unexplained investment in property : Rs. 49,02.320/-  Addition on profit on sale of land: Rs. 2,44,17,300/- 3. As a result of the addition, total income of the assessee was computed by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 2,93,38,250/-. 4. Vide impugned order, Learned CIT(A) deleted the first mentioned addition made u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) i.e. of Rs. 49,02,320/- on account of unexplained investment in property, but, at the same time, remitted the matter to Assessing Officer to comply with the directions issued by him in this regard. As regards the second addition, Learned CIT(A) confirmed the same for the reasons recorded in the impugned order. Hence, this appeal. It may be mentioned here that the assessee challenged by way of this appeal, even the order vide which the matter, as regards the first addition remitted to the Assessing Officer. 5. Arguments heard. File perused. 6. The assessment proceedings were initiated on receipt of information available with the Income Tax Department that the assessee and another, namely, Smt. Saroj Sharma during financial year 2013-14, relevant to the assessment year 2014-15, purchased following immovable properties:- 3 ITA No. 341/JPR/2024 Smt. Anaro Devi, Alwar S. No. Khasra No. Date of purchase Amount of purchase 1. 3/4th par of 440/1.72 4-4-2013 19,58,300 2. 3/4th par of 440/1.72 4-4-2013 19,58,300 3. ½ part of Khasra 441/1.20 4-4-2013 18,21,600 4. Khasra No. 442/1.29 4-4-2013 20,33,220 5. Khasra No. 442/1.29 4-4-2013 20,33,220 Total 98,04,640 Further information received by the department was that the assesseeand Smt. Saroj Sharma sold the above said properties, only 25 days after purchase thereof. Details as regards the sale transaction, as available in the assessment order, have been tabulated as under: S. No. Khasra No. Date of purchase Amount of purchase 1. 3/4th par of 440/1.72 29-4-2013 1,18,93,800 2. 3/4th par of 440/1.72 29-4-2013 1,18,93,800 3. ½ part of Khasra 441/1.20 29-4-2013 1,10,64,000 4. Khasra No. 442/1.29 29-4-2013 1,18,93,800 5. Khasra No. 442/1.29 29-4-2013 1,18,93,800 Total 5,86,39,200 So, as per claim of the department on 04.04.2013, the assessee and another Smt. Saroj Sharma purchased the above said immovable properties for Rs. 98,04,640/-, and the same sold on 29.04.2013 for Rs. 4 ITA No. 341/JPR/2024 Smt. Anaro Devi, Alwar 5,86,39,200/-, and further that the seller -the assessee had profit on the said transactions of sale of said properties. Thereupon proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. 7. The assessee submitted her reply to the notice u/s 148 of the Act along with copy of return of income, declaring her income at Rs. 18,063/-. The Authorized Representative of the assessee asked for reasons, and the department provided the same. Then, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 12.08.2019 and the assessee submitted her reply thereto. 8. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer dealt with two issues i.e. as regards source of investment of Rs. 49,02,320/-, for the purchase of and profit on sale of, the above said immovable properties. As regards the first issue, the assessee replied that she had borrowed funds from RDS Buildcon and the said amount was reflected in her statement of account issued by her Bank. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the reply furnished by the assessee and the same led to making of first addition of Rs. 49,02,320/-. 9. As noticed above, on appeal filed by the assessee, Learned CIT(A) deleted the said addition made u/s 69 of the Act, and remanded the matter 5 ITA No. 341/JPR/2024 Smt. Anaro Devi, Alwar to the Assessing Officer for verification of certain facts and decision afresh in respect thereof. 10. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that in the paper book submitted on behalf of the appellant, the last mentioned document is copy of order dated 2.4.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer on remand of the matter. Present appeal came to be filed on 21.3.2024. The order on remand, as regards the first issue/addition came to be passed subsequently, on 2.4.2024. In other words, said order came to passed by the Assessing Officer after filing of present appeal before this Appellate Tribunal. 11. As is available from the order dated 2.4.2024, the assessee participated in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer conducted while giving effect to the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A). From the factum of participation of the assessee in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer in compliance with the impugned order, it can safely be said that the assessee accepted the impugned order as regards deletion of the first mentioned addition with the direction for fresh decision after verification of certain facts. 12. In case the assessee felt aggrieved by said subsequent order dated 2.4.2024, she would have challenged the same, as per procedure, firstly, before the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). 6 ITA No. 341/JPR/2024 Smt. Anaro Devi, Alwar Learned AR for the appellant has not brought to our notice, either by way of any informatory application, or in the course of arguments that the appellant has challenged said assessment order dated 2.4.2024 before the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). 13. In the given situation, when vide impugned order, Learned CIT(A) deleted the first mentioned addition and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer, and the Assessing Officer passed fresh order as regards the first addition, present appeal as regards said first addition challenging the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) is not maintainable. We order accordingly. As regards the 2nd Addition on profit on sale of the immovable property 14. The Assessing Officer, secondly dealt with the issue of profit of sale of the immovable property and made addition of Rs. 2,44,17,300/-, which, as noticed above, has been upheld by Learned CIT(A). 15. As is available from the assessment order, during assessment proceedings, when the assessee was called upon to furnish details regarding sale of said immovable property and profit earned therefrom, the assessee submitted following reply:- 7 ITA No. 341/JPR/2024 Smt. Anaro Devi, Alwar “This refers to the assessment proceedings u/s 147/143(3) OF Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein you have asked to deliver you to the documentary evidence to substantiate the claim of the assessee in terms of the return filed for the A.Y.2014-15. We would like to make the following submissions for your kind consideration. (i) During the year under consideration the assesseealongwith Smt. Saroj Sharma sold agricultural land situated in a rural area as per the details attached herewith. In terms of sectin2(14), agriculture land situated in a rural area is considered as a capital asset, hence any profit profit/gain derived out of sale of such land is a capital receipt not chargeable to tax. The land sold by the assessee is situated in a village which is far away from the municipal limits, hence satisfies the conditions to be treated as agriculture land situated in a rural area and to be treated as a capital asset. (ii) Copy of purchase deed and sale deed in the order as mentioned are attached. (iii) The report of the Patwari of the concerned area establishing that the said land was out of the municipal limit is also enclosed.” 16. After taking into consideration the reply furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had not declared profit of sale of the above said immovable property. Accordingly, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee calling upon her to show cause, as to why profit of sale of the said properties was not disclosed in her return of income. The assessee did not furnish any reply to the said notice dated 11.11.2019. 8 ITA No. 341/JPR/2024 Smt. Anaro Devi, Alwar Thereupon, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice dated 20.11.2019 to the assessee. To the said show cause notice, the assessee submitted reply and details of purchase and sale of the said immovable properties, in the form of copy of deeds executed in this regard and pleaded said sale transactions were covered under head “Capital Gain”. The Assessing Officer after taking into consideration the above said reply of the assessee did not accept her version that the said transactions of sale of immovable property were covered under the head “capital gain”. In this regard, the Assessing Officer concluded that the said transactions of sale of immovable property were having the element of business transaction and adventure in the nature of trade. Relevant observations made by the Assessing Officer in this regard are extracted hereunder:- “It is also worthwhile to mention here that the assessee purchased the five lands under five different sale deeds. The first purchase was for Rs. 19,58,000/- and it covered a piece of land admeasuring 3/4th part of 440/1.72; the second purchase related to 3/4th part of 440/1.72 for Rs. 19,58,000/-; the third purchase was of ½ part of khasra No. 441/1.20 for Rs. 18,,21,000/-, the fourth purchases was Khasra No. 442/1.29 for Rs. 20,33,220/- and firth purchase was also for Khasra No 442/1.29 for Rs. 20,33,220/- The properties purchased under these purchase deeds were sold on 29-4-2013 for Rs.5,86,39,200/- to M/s RDS Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. The lands in question were vacant sites and they brought no income to the assessee. During the time that the assessee was in possession of these lands the assessee made no effort to put up any structures on them or to cultivate them; and so it was clear that the only object with which the assessee 9 ITA No. 341/JPR/2024 Smt. Anaro Devi, Alwar had purchased these lands was to sell them to the RDS Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. at a profit. Therefore, it is clear that that the lands had been purchased by the assessee wholly and solely with the idea of selling them at profit to the RDS Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. In view of these facts it is concluded that the sum of Rs. 4,84,61,440 was not a capital accretion but was a gain made in the adventure in the nature of business in carrying out the scheme of profit-making.” 17. The Assessing Officer, in arriving at the above said conclusion, relied on following two decisions:-  G.Venkataswami Baidu & Co. vs. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594, by Hon’ble Supreme Court.  DCIT vs. Gopal Ramarayan Kasat, (2011) 9 Taxmann 236, by Hon’ble Bombay High Court. 18. It may be mentioned here that and the one of the grounds of appeal, is that the Assessing Officer has observed in the assessment order that as requested by the Ld. AR of the assessee, reasons were provided, but actually no reason was provided, and as such, the assessment order deserved to be treated as null and void. Learned DR for the department opposed said ground of appeal while submitting that reasons were provided, and that the appellant has raised this false ground in the grounds of appeal. 10 ITA No. 341/JPR/2024 Smt. Anaro Devi, Alwar In the course of arguments when Ld. DR for the department vehemently opposed the ground, by submitting that reasons were provided to the assessee, and that the appellant has raised this false ground, Ld. AR for the appellant opted not to press said ground of appeal. Accordingly, this ground is rejected, same having not been pressed. 19. As regards the addition of Rs. 2,44,17,300/-, Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the land sold by the assesseewas agricultural land, but the relevant period being harvesting season, there could be no cultivation in the said land. Ld. AR for the appellant-assessee has admitted that the land was sold by the appellant only 25 days after its purchase, but submitted that simply from this fact, no adverse inference could be drawn by the authorities below, so as to treat the transactions of sale as an adventure in trade, especially when the assessee had purchased said land with intent to cultivate, but, having regard to high prices offered for the same, she opted to sell the same. The contention is that in the given situation, the land continued to be an agricultural land, and the decisions relied on by the Assessing Officer were not applicable to the present case, but, even then Learned CIT(A) upheld the addition, instead of deleting the same. 11 ITA No. 341/JPR/2024 Smt. Anaro Devi, Alwar In support of his contention, Ld. AR for the appellant has relied on following decisions:- S. No. Particulars Page Nos. 1. Copy of order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) vs Arun Majeed in its decision dated 19.07.2024 reported in 165 taxmann.com 457 01-10 2. Copy of order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Rajkot-1, vs Heenaben Bhadresh Mehta in its decision dated 26.06.2018 reported in 96 taxmann.com 164 11-15 3. Copy of order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai vs A.Vinod Kumar Reddy in its decision dated 06.06.2018 reported in 96 taxmann.com 287. 16-21 4. Copy of order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4, Chennai vs Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd. in its decision dated 01.09.2016 reported in 73 taxmann.com 312 22-35 5. Copy of order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs RajshibhaiMeramanbhai Odedra in its decision dated 17.09.2013 reported in 42 taxmann.com 497 36-40 6. Copy of order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of M.S. Srinivasa Naicker vs Income Tax Officer in its decision dated 29.01.2007 reported in 169 taxmann.com 255 41-45 7. Copy of order passed by Hon'ble Jaipur Bench of ITAT in the case of Devids Sajnani vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle (Int. Tax), Jaipur in its decision dated 07.12.2023 in appeal No. 10/JP/2022 46-73 8. Copy of order passed by Hon'ble Chennai Bench of ITAT in the case of N. Jayamurgan vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 (1). Chennai in its decision dated 27.04.2016 reported in 70 taxmann.com 24 74-97 Ld. AR for the appellant also sought to rely on copy of sale deed dated 20.07.2012 in respect of another piece of agricultural land that was earlier held by the assessee and used for cultivation. 12 ITA No. 341/JPR/2024 Smt. Anaro Devi, Alwar 20. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the department has opposed the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant and submitted that having regard to all the facts and circumstances pointed out and considered by the Assessing Officer and Learned CIT(A), it can safely be said that the assessee having purchased the immovable property during the period from 02.04.2013 to 04.04.2013, sold the same only 25 days after its purchase, and as such, the authorities below were fully justified in arriving at the conclusion that the transactions of purchase and sale of the said properties were in the nature of an adventure in trade. Accordingly, Ld. DR for the department has contended that CIT(A) has rightly upheld the addition made on the amount of profit on said property, to the extent of half share sold by the assessee. In support of her contention, Ld. DR has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT,AIR 1993 SC 2585. 21. The question whether a transaction is an adventure in the nature of trade is to be decided on a consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances which are proved in the particular case. The answer to the question does not depend upon the application of any abstract rule or principle or formula but must depend upon the total impression and effect 13 ITA No. 341/JPR/2024 Smt. Anaro Devi, Alwar of all the relevant facts and circumstances established in the particular case. The magnitude of the transaction of purchase, the nature of the commodity, the subsequent dealings of the assessee, the nature of the organisation employed by the assessee and the manner of disposal may be such that the transaction may be stamped with the character of a trading nature. In this regard, reference may be made to decision by Hon’ble Apex Court in P. M. Mohammed Meerakhan v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1969] 73 ITR 735 (SC). 22. Learned AR for the appellant has submitted that intention of the landowner or the assessee and the nature of the land are of much significance in such like cases. 23. In Saarifabibi ‘s case (supra), relied on behalf of the department, the subject land was not cultivated prior to its sale; that the appellant had no intention to bring the same under cultivation at any time; and the price at which the same was sold were also the factors which outweighed the circumstances appearing in favour of the assessee therein. 24. On behalf of the appellant, it has not been pointed out that in any of the decisions cited on behalf of the assessee, land was sold within such a short span i.e. after 24 days of the purchase thereof, and that too simply 14 ITA No. 341/JPR/2024 Smt. Anaro Devi, Alwar because of the assessee was getting bigger amount due to increase in the prices of the land. 25. In G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1959] 35 ITR 594 (SC),relied on by the Assessing Officer, the appellant firm which acted as managing agents purchased, for a total consideration of Rs. 8,713, four contiguous plots of land adjacent to the place where the mills of the company managed by it were situated. The first purchase was made in October, 1941, and subsequent purchases were made in November, 1941, June, 1942, and November, 1942. As long as the appellant was in possession of the land it made no effort to cultivate it or erect any superstructure on it but allowed the land to remain unutilised except for the rent received from the house which existed on one of the plots. The appellant sold the land to the company managed by it in two lots in September and November, 1947, for a total consideration of Rs. 52,600. The question was whether the sum of Rs. 43,887, being the excess realised by the appellant by the two sales over its purchase price, was assessable to income-tax. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the contention of the appellant that the properties were bought as an investment and that the plots were acquired for building tenements for the labourers of the mills but 15 ITA No. 341/JPR/2024 Smt. Anaro Devi, Alwar came to the conclusion that the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade. On a reference, the High Court expressed the same view. It was held by Hon’ble Apex Court in appeal that the Appellate Tribunal was right in inferring that the appellant knew that it would be able to sell the lands to the managed company whenever it thought it profitable so to do, that the appellant purchased the four plots of land with the sole intention of selling them to the mills at a profit and that the High Court was right in holding that the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade. There may be cases where the purchase was made solely and exclusively with the intention to resell at a profit and the purchaser had no intention of holding the property for himself or otherwise enjoying or using it. As held, the presence of such an intention is no doubt a relevant factor and unless it is offset by the presence of other factors, it would raise a strong presumption that the transaction is an adventure in the nature of trade. 26. In Smt. Indramani Bai v. Additional Commissioner of Income- tax,1993] 70 Taxman 67 (SC), in December 1963, the assesses, the wives of two brothers, purchased a piece of land measuring 8.479 sq. yards in the Banjara Hills Area of Hyderabad, for a consideration of Rs. 10,820. 16 ITA No. 341/JPR/2024 Smt. Anaro Devi, Alwar Shortly after purchasing the land, they carved it into four plots and sold then, individually. Two agreements of sale were entered into, one in May 1964, and the other in July 1964, and sale deeds were executed in pursuance thereof on 9-101964 and 13-11-1964. the total consideration received under the sale deeds was Rs. 52,285. The ITO brought the difference amount to tax treating the transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade. The assessees questioned the same by way of an appeal before the AAC. It was dismissed. The matter was then carried in further appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal holding that the intention of the assessee while purchasing the said land was to make an investment and that they had no intention of re-selling the same. It observed that, having regard to the background of the assessees, the transaction cannot be held to be an adventure in the nature of trade. On a reference, the High Court came to a contrary conclusion. According to the High Court, the fact that soon after the purchase of the land, the assessees carved it into plots and sold them within a few months, coupled with the other faces and circumstances of the case, establishes 17 ITA No. 341/JPR/2024 Smt. Anaro Devi, Alwar that the intention of the assessees, even when they purchased the land, was to re-sell the same and not to make an investment. That is how, the matter reached Hon’ble Supreme Court. Having regard to all the facts, Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the decision by the High Court, by observing in the manner as: “3 . On the facts found we cannot say that the High Court was in error in coming to the conclusion it did. On the other hand, the Tribunal seems to have made certain assumptions while coming to the conclusion in favour of the assessees, which were not really warranted. The Tribunal refers to the 'background of the ladies' as one of the circumstances inducing it to come to the conclusion in favour of the assessees but it has not taken care to elucidate what that background was. The fact that soon after the purchase, the assessees carved out the land into plots and sold them within a few months, coupled with the other circumstances of the case, is consistent more with the theory of adventure in the nature of trade than with the other theory accepted by the Tribunal.” Accordingly, Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal. 27. As noticed above, admittedly, the land was purchased on 4.4.2013 sold on 29.4.2013 i.e. on 25th day of said purchase. It was purchased for a sum of Rs.98,04,640/- and sold for a total sum of Rs. 5,86,39,200/-. It is significant to note that this is not a case where the assessee, after sale of the abovesaid land, purchased other piece of land and then 18 ITA No. 341/JPR/2024 Smt. Anaro Devi, Alwar indulged in agriculture thereon. Had it been so, then the outcome might have been different. 27. It may be mentioned here that during pendency of this appeal, on behalf of the appellant an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, came to be filed with the prayer that copy of registered deed in respect of some other agricultural land held by the assessee-appellant in earlier years, in addition to her own affidavit, be taken in record and considered, as the same could not be submitted earlier before the authorities below. As regards the application, nowhere it has been averred as to why the documents now sought to be brought before us, were not produced before the authorities below. Both these could be submitted before the authorities below. Fact remains that these were not submitted there, for the reasons best known to the applicant. Even otherwise, the copy of sale deed sought to be produced before us does not pertain to the subject land. Learned AR for the applicant has not been able to convince us as to how said document is relevant for determination of the issue involved as regards the land sold by her and another. 19 ITA No. 341/JPR/2024 Smt. Anaro Devi, Alwar As regards non user of the subject land purchased and sold by the assessee, it is admitted by the assessee that she sold the subject land only 25 days after the purchase thereof, and that too keeping in view increase in the prices of the land. In view of said claim of the assessee, neither the abovesaid sale deed pertaining to other land earlier held by her, nor her affidavit, sought to be filed before us would of any relevance for adjudication of the issue involved. As a result, there is no merit in the application seeking production of the additional evidence before us. Same is rejected. 28. In the given facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the contention of learned AR for the appellant that the period for which land is held by the landowner is not a significant factor. In view of the above discussion, we uphold the second addition made on the profit on sale of the land treating the same as an adventure in the nature of trade. Result 29. In view of the well settled law relied on above, and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of this case, we confirm the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) whereby the view of the Assessing Officer has been confirmed 20 ITA No. 341/JPR/2024 Smt. Anaro Devi, Alwar that this is a case of an adventure in the nature of trade and the addition as regards profit on sale of land has been sustained. 30. Consequently, as regards the second addition made on profit on sale of the land, this appeal is hereby dismissed. As regards the first addition, for the reasons recorded above, this appeal is dismissed being not maintainable. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 21/04/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 21/04/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Smt. Anaro Devi, Alwar. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Alwar. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 341/JPR/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar "