BUNDELKHANDI SUBOPDH MOTICHAND (HUF),JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 2772/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Bundelkhandi Subodh DCIT, Circle-1, Motichand (HUF), Jalgaon. Flat No.2, vs. Siddhanchal Residency, Near Onkareshwar Temple, Jai Nagar, Jalgaon, Maharashtra-425001. PAN : AACHB5036P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Smt. Deepa Khare Department by : Shri Rajesh Haladkar, Addl.CIT Date of Hearing : 10-08-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 12-08-2026 O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, J.M.:

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 02.12.2024 of the Ld.ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Gurugram, u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”), pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2013-14.

2 ITA No. 2772/PUN/2024 un-complied by the assessee, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) issued a show cause notice requesting the assessee to show cause as to why exemption claimed u/s 54F of the Act amounting to Rs. 17,46,752/- should not be disallowed. In response thereto, the assessee filed its submission which was duly considered by the Ld. AO but not found to be acceptable due to the reason and finding recorded in Para 8 of his assessment order. The Ld. AO held that the assessee has wrongly claimed the deduction u/s 54F of the Act amounting to Rs. 18,74,134/- and added the same back to the total income of the assessee for AY 2013-14. He assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,49,91,216/- thereby making an addition of Rs. 18,74,134/- to the income of Rs. 1,31,17,082/- as per order u/s 143(3) dated 04.08.2015, vide his order passed on 21.12.2018 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act.

“4.1 Ground of appeal No. 1:-The reply filed by the appellant has been considered. These are the same documents which were produced before Assessing officer during re-assessment proceeding and the same were considered by the Assessing Officer before passing the order. The appellant has not furnished any new relevant and cogent evidence to substantiate its claim. In view of these facts the decision of the assessing officer is upheld and these grounds of appeal of the appellant are hereby Dismissed.”

“1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming a disallowance of Rs. 18,74,134/-, exemption u/s 54 F, when no such claim was made in the return. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend above or any other grounds of appeal.”

3 ITA No. 2772/PUN/2024 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the finding of the Ld. AO is factually incorrect as the assessee never claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act in its return of income for AY 2013-14. The Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) has also failed to take cognizance of the assessee‟s submission and failed to appreciate the facts correctly. Further, referring to the table showing the correct computation of income under the head capital gain as per return, submitted by the assessee which is reproduced on page 3 of the Addl/JCIT(A)‟s order and the screenshot of the relevant extract from the ITR dated 29.09.2013 which is reproduced on page 7of the impugned order, the Ld. AR submitted that the reopening of the assessee‟s case itself was based on incorrect facts. She therefore submitted that the disallowance made by the AO needs to be deleted. She had no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. AO for verification of the assessee‟s claim.

4 ITA No. 2772/PUN/2024 Rs. 18,74,134/-. The Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) has upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assesse for the reasons which we have already reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the Ld. AO has passed the impugned assessment order based on the incorrect factual position as the assessee never claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act and the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) has simply upheld the decision of the Ld. AO. From the perusal of the impugned order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), we find that the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) has not given any independent finding in respect of the above contention of the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we deem it fit, in the interest of justice and fair play, to set aside the order of the Ld.Addl/JCIT(A) and remit the issue back to the file of the Ld. AO for the limited purpose of verification of the contention of the assessee that no such claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act was made in return of income by the assessee for AY 2013-14. The Ld. AO shall make necessary verification and if the contention of the assessee is found to be correct, allow the same and amend the assessment order accordingly as per law. We direct and hold accordingly. The solitary ground raised by the assessee is thus allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 12-08-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (RAMA KANTA PANDA) (ASTHA CHANDRA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Tadepalli Naga पुणे/Pune; Digitally signed by Tadepalli Naga Murali Mohan दिन ांक/Dated : 12-08-2026 Murali Mohan Date: 2026.08.13 11:42:04 +05'30' TNMM

5 ITA No. 2772/PUN/2024 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 2. 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, „A‟ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune