MILAN SACHIN SOUNDALKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 24(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई पीठ�, मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: A BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA 3112 & 3113/MUM/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2013-14) MILAN SACHIN SOUNDALKAR ITO, WARD 24(2)(1), MUMBAI 222, D WING, SHITLADEVI CHS LTD, LINK ROAD, D.N.NAGAR, 408, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, ANDHERI, 400053, MUMBAI- Vs. LALBAG, PAREL, 400012 400053, MAHARASHTRA MUMBAI-400012, MAHARASHTRA अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: DEIPS3300N

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CA ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Surendra Mohan ( SR. DR.)

सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 24-Jun-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 30/07/2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders both dated 30/01/2026 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A)”] for A.Y. 2013-14, arising from the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, respectively.

The assessee, along with six other co-owners, all members of the Satupe family, jointly owned ancestral agricultural land bearing Gat Nos. 699, 708, 757 and 763 situated at Mauje Kihim, Taluka Alibaug, District Raigad. The said property was sold vide an Agreement for Sale dated 19/05/2012 to Shri Devansh Sanjay Parasrampuria for a stated sale consideration of Rs.1,01,00,000/- . However, the stamp valuation authority adopted the value of the property at Rs.1,96,56,000/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO adopted the stamp duty value as the full value of consideration and, instead of restricting the addition to the assessee's proportionate share, brought the entire amount to tax in the hands of the assessee by computing short-term capital gains of Rs. 1,96,56,000/-.

Aggrieved by the said addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).

2.1. The assessee had filed detailed written submissions dated 24/12/2024 on the e-filing portal. However, it was submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) failed to consider the said submissions and dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the specific grounds raised by the assessee.

Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

3.1. The Ld.AR further submitted that the Agreement for Sale dated 19/05/2012 was a conditional agreement, wherein the sale transaction was to be completed upon the fulfilment of various milestones stipulated therein. It was contended that the agreement itself prescribed the manner and stages in which the transaction was to be completed by the respective parties.

3.2. The Ld.AR further submitted that, subsequently, disputes arose between the parties, and a civil suit in respect of the subject property is presently pending before the competent Court at Alibaug. It was submitted that the relevant documents pertaining to the said proceedings have been placed on record, which demonstrate that the sale transaction was never completed and that no sale deed was ultimately executed.

3.3. The Ld.AR contended that, in the absence of execution of the sale deed, the property was never transferred, and neither the assessee nor the other co-owners received the full sale consideration as contemplated under the Agreement for Sale. It was further submitted that the transaction could not be completed as the requisite permission of the State Government u/s.43 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was not obtained.

3.4. The Ld.AR emphasized that all these facts and supporting documents had been duly furnished before the Ld.CIT(A), however the same were not considered while passing the impugned order. It was also submitted that, pursuant to the quantum addition, a penalty order has been passed levying penalty of Rs.58,98,604/- in the hands of the assessee.

3.5. Per contra, the Ld.DR placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below.

We have perused the submissions advance by both sides in light of the record placed before us.

4.1. In our considered opinion, the evidences furnished by the assessee require proper verification before determining the taxability of the impugned transaction. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The Ld.CIT(A) shall examine and verify the evidences placed on record by the assessee and determine whether the transaction contemplated under the Agreement for Sale was ultimately concluded. In the event it is found that the transaction was concluded, the Ld.CIT(A) shall also examine the assessee's proportionate share in the property and compute the capital gains, if any, in accordance with law. The Ld.CIT(A) shall pass a reasoned and speaking order after duly considering all the evidences and submissions placed by the assessee.

Needless to observe, the assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard and shall be at liberty to file such further evidences as may be considered necessary in support of its case.

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee in the quantum appeal are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Since the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act emanates from the quantum addition, and the quantum issue has been restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the penalty order, being consequential in nature, cannot survive independently at this stage. We, therefore, set aside the impugned penalty order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO, as the case may be, to be decided afresh in accordance with the outcome of the quantum proceedings and in accordance with law.

In the result, the quantum appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and the penalty appeal is also allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH BEENA PILLAI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 30/07/2026 SC, Sr. P.S.

Copy to: MILAN SACHIN SOUNDALKAR, 222, D WING, SHITLADEVI CHS LTD, LINK ROAD, D.N.NAGAR, ANDHERI, 1 400053, MUMBAI-400053, MAHARASHTRA

ITO, WARD 24(2)(1), MUMBAI, 408, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, LALBAG, 2 PAREL, 400012, MUMBAI-400012, MAHARASHTRA

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE