VITHALRAO RANGANATHRAO AMBARWADIKAR,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD-3(2) , AURANGABAD

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,PUNE “B” BENCH BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA 1854/PUN/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/Asst. Year:2015-16) Permanent Account Number: AELPA0579F VITHALRAO ITO WARD-3(2), RANGANATHRAO INCOME TAX OFFICE, AMBARWADIKAR LIC BUILDING,CIDCO PLOT NO 196 Vs. AURANGABAD-431003, SAMARTH NAGAR, MAHARASHTRA AURANGABAD-431001, MAHARASHTRA (अपीलधर्थीAppellant) (प्रत्यर्थीRespondent)

निर्धारितीद्वधिध/Assessee represented by: Shri .Pratikh Jha.AR िधजस्‍वद्वधिध/Revenue represented by: Shri. Amit Bobde.CIT-DR.

सुिवधईकीतधिीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 17-06-2026 घोषणधकीतधिीख/Date of pronouncement: 27-07-2026 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the NFAC/CIT(A)passed u/sec 143(3) and u/sec250 of the I.T. Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal which is as under:- “1. On the facts and circumstance previeling in the case. the Id. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi based in confirming the addition of Rs.6,80,61,377/- on account of Capital Gain even through the liability on account of Long Term Capital Gain did not attract for the FY 2014-15 relevant to AY 2015-16 and therefore, it is requested to delete the addition made by the AO and confirmed by CIT (A) NFAC Delhi of Rs. 6,80,61,377/-. 2. On the facts and circumstance previeling in the case, the Id. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi has erred in not considering the submission made by the appellant before him in judicious manner, also he did not rebutted the issues either on facts or on legal status in as much as: i) The amount of sale consideration has only been received partly and the transfer completion was subject to entire payment of the sale price of the property. ii) The transfer could not be completed due to the pendency of suit before the civil courts and eserch the provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the IT A53A the transfer of property Act 1882 has set been fulfilled. 3. On the facts and circumstance prevailing in the case, the Id. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi has erred in not considering the trite law that assessment of the particular year has to be considered separate and distinct than of the other assessment year. The Honorable CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi has compared the assessment year 2015-16 erroneously with the Ay 2018-19. The issue legally involved is that for the AY 2015-16, under which the addition is made is not legally sustainable, when particularly the Ld AO and CIT (A) NFAC has accepted the legal status, as the addition cannot be made in the AY 2015-16 It is requested to kindly delete the addition and oblige. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 on 29.09.2015 disclosing a title income of Rs. NIL with the current loss of Rs. 58,84,828/-. And the income tax return was processed u/sec 143(1) of the Act and the case was select for limited scrutiny under the CASS and notice u/sec 143(2) ot the Act was issued. In compliance to notice, the Ld.AR of the assessee has appeared from time to time and submitted the copy of acknowledgement of ITR filed along with computation of income, profit and loss account, capital account and balance sheet, schedules and tax Audit report. Further notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued along with questionnaire to produce the details and information. The Assessing Officer (A.O) perusal of the details found that assessee is dealer of Hindustan Petroleum products and is proprietor of M/s. Ambarwardikar Enterprises and during the F.Y. 2014-15 the assessee has sold 90R land situated at Warje,Tal, Haweli Dist Pune for consideration of Rs. 10,30,11,500/- and the assessee has not disclosed the capital gains in the return of income filed. The assessee was provided opportunity to submit the details and assessee vide submissions dated 28.11.2017 has furnished the copy of purchase deed and sale deed of the said property. The Ld.AR submissions before the AO are that the assessee has purchased the property on 27.05.2008 for consideration of Rs. 3,49,50,122/- (indexed value) and the property is situated within the municipal limit of Pune and the assessee has sold the land for Rs. 10,30,11,500/- and the sale of the land was not disclosed in the return of income filed. The A.O on perusal of the sale deed, found that the assessee has given possession of land to the vendor and the land was transferred and capital gains has to be worked out dealt at para4.2 of the order. Accordingly, the AO has computed the long term capital gains of Rs. 6,80,61,371/- and assessed the total income of Rs. 6,21,76,549/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 06.12.2017. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed the appeal before the CIT(A) whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts, finding of the A.O, and submissions but confirmed the action of the A.O and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of long term capital gains overlooking the factual and material evidences. The Ld.AR emphasized that the only part sale consideration is received and due to legal dispute, suits were filed before the civil courts and is pending, hence transfer conditions u/sec2(47) of the Act r.w.s 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 are not fulfilled and therefore computation of Long Term capital gains does not warrant .Per Contra, the Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue envisaged by the Ld.AR that the CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of long term capital gains and has not considered the legal statue that the only part consideration was received by the Ld.AO on transfer and also pendency of suits filed before the Civil Courts. We find on this issue, the CIT(A) has dealt on facts and submissions at Page 10 Para 5.1 to 5.4 of the order as under: “5.1. The grounds of appeal, assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act and written submissions have been carefully considered. 5.2. Ground Nos. 2 & 3 raised against the action of the AO w.r.t. legal position for treatment of LTCG & 53A does not apply to the case of the appellant during pendency of the suit. 5.3. During the appeal proceedings, the appellant furnished written submission along with copy of purchase deed, sale deed, Capital alc, P & L a/c and Balance Sheets of Suryakant Ambarwadikar & Garden Court Bar & Restaurant etc., On perusal of the written submission, the appellant stated that he did not receive the full part out of the total consideration of Rs. 10,30,11,500/- and there is a dispute pending before the court w.r.t. title of the property. The transfer of the impugned property vide sale deed dated 16.10.2014 had not been completed and therefore the capital gain assessed by the AO deserves to be declared vold-initio and without jurisdiction. Also stated that the Section 53A does not apply to the case of the appellant i.e., transferee during the pendency of suit. The appellant prayed for set aside of the appeal as the purchaser was not willing to perform his part of contract the appollant also relied on the various case laws, which are not related to the fac's of the case 5.4. The AO stated in the assessment order that vide sale deed dated 14.10.2014 at para no. 10 & 16 clee ly states that the appellant had given fully rights and possession of the land to the vendor to the vendor II appears the land was transferred/sold and the consideration was received thereby capital gains had been computed by the AO Now the appellant contended that full consideration was not received and hence requested the assessment order is to be set aside Further the appellant stated that the dispute of tile of the property was settled during the A.Y. 2018-19. It is important to note that for all the submissions made by the appellant, no evidence regarding the prayer of the appellant was submitted either before the AO or during the appeal proceeding The appellant did not raise any ground(s) against the addition made on account of LTCG, only raised on the legal issues ie., consideration not fully received, transfer was not legally possible since the suit is pending before the court. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant miserably failed to rebut the findings of the AO along with the documentary evidences in support of his claim. Alternatively, it is verified that the appellant has not offered any capital gains during the A.Y 2018-19, even if to consider that the argument of the appellant is bonafide/genuine. In view of the facts, the appellant has no intention to offer the capital gains in either in the A.Y. 2015-16 or A.Y. 2018-19 Hence, I concur with the finding of line Au with respect to addition made on account of Long-Term Capital Gain of Rs.6.80.61,377/- Therefore, the action of the AO is upheld. Accordingly, the ground nos 2 & 3 are dismissed”. 6. The Ld. DR referred to the findings of the Assessing officer in the assessment order on possession of land was handed over by the assessee and relied on the judicial decisions and the Ld.AR could not controvert the findings of the A.O/CIT(A) on the disputed issue with any new cogent material or information. We have considered the facts, circumstances, submissions and the judicial decisions relied by the revenue and accordingly we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and uphold the same and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the assesse. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on the open Court on 27th July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- MANISH BORAD PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Pune, दिन ांक / Dated: 27th July, 2026. Abhishek Mohan Abhishek Digitally signed by Abhishek Mohan Mohan Date: 2026.07.28 13:36:33 +05'30' आिेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अिीि र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. तिभ गीयप्रतितनति,आयकरअिीिीयअतिकरण, “B”बेंच, पुणे/ DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. ग र्डफ़ इि / Guard File 5. //True Copy//

आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

Assistant Registrar, आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, / ITAT, Pune