VIKRAM SANJAY KAKADE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE

आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These are cross appeals and Cross Objection by the assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2021-22 directed against the order dated 18.07.2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi arising out of Assessment Order dated 26.12.2022 passed

ITA Nos.2107/PUN/2025 ITA No.2082/PUN/2025 and CO No.12/PUN/2026

u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- on the ground that it was based on third-party statements. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,00,00,000/-citing the reasons that there is no documentary evidence of the cash transaction, even though the key employees of the Malpani Group involved in the cash transactions had admitted that the evidences of cash transactions were destroyed once the cash transaction is complete. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in holding that principles of natural justice were violated, as the assessee had an opportunity to respond to the material during post- search enquiries. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,25,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 31,45,000/- made on account of unexplained cash deposits. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that withdrawal from one account on the same day and depositing the same in the other account is not rational and without any business acumen. The assesse has not explained any reasons for the same and submitted mere self-generated cash book entries to substantiate the same. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”

“1. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is unsustainable in law, as the said provision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and hence the addition so made is liable to be deleted being bad in law and void-ab-initio.

ITA Nos.2107/PUN/2025 ITA No.2082/PUN/2025 and CO No.12/PUN/2026

“1. That The respondent Assessee submits that the appellant has raised a grievance alleging that the learned CIT A erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7 crore on the ground that the same was based solely on third party statements. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that the learned CIT(A), after due consideration of facts and law, has rightly held that the Assessing Officer had relied merely on the statements of Shri Ashish Malpani and certain employees of his group but also on the fact that the AO could not able to bring on record any independent OR corroborative evidence to establish that a sum of Rs. 7 crore was, in fact, received by the respondent assessee during the Financial Year 2020 21.

ITA Nos.2107/PUN/2025 ITA No.2082/PUN/2025 and CO No.12/PUN/2026

ITA Nos.2107/PUN/2025 ITA No.2082/PUN/2025 and CO No.12/PUN/2026 relating to cash deposit is concerned, ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the source of cash deposit of Rs.31,45,000/- with Axis Bank and made the addition for explained cash at Rs.31,45,000/-. Also ld. Assessing Officer based on the information received from the search and survey proceedings carried out in the Malpani group of cases on 17.02.2021 showing that the assessee sold land situated at Kolechaphesar Village to Malpani group and apart from the consideration received through banking channel, assessee has been alleged to have received on- money of Rs.7.00 crore. This allegation of the assessee having received on-money of Rs.7.00 crore has been stated by Mr. Nitin Prakash Jadhav, Business Development Manager of Malpani group, Mr. Santosh Sadashiv Bhagat also employed with Malpani group and also the contents of statement of Mr. Ashish Madhav Malpani, key person and owner of Malpani group engaged in Real Estate business. Ld. Assessing Officer also confronted the assessee the remarks given by Investigation wing post search asking about the said transaction of the alleged on-money given by Malpani group. Assessee has denied to have taken any cash from Malpani group. Ld. Assessing Officer based on the information received from search and survey proceedings in the case of Malpani group came to the conclusion that in the transaction of sale of agricultural land by the assessee to Malpani group sum of Rs.7.00 crore has been received over and above the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed and accordingly made the addition thereof u/s.69A of the Act. Further, ld. Assessing Officer has also examined the transaction giving rise to short term capital gain but for want of clarification and documentary evidence made the addition under the head short

ITA Nos.2107/PUN/2025 ITA No.2082/PUN/2025 and CO No.12/PUN/2026 term capital gain at Rs.1,44,73,750/-. Income assessed at Rs.9,05,55,750/-.

ITA Nos.2107/PUN/2025 ITA No.2082/PUN/2025 and CO No.12/PUN/2026 order of Assessing Officer. So far as the grounds raised by the assessee in Cross Objection, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).

ITA Nos.2107/PUN/2025 ITA No.2082/PUN/2025 and CO No.12/PUN/2026

“5. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is engaged in the real estate business and filed his return of income for AY 2021-22 on 31/3/2022 declaring a total income of Rs. 29,37,000/- which included a Short term Capital Gain (STCG) of Rs.29,11,520/. The case was selected for scrutiny and a questionnaire on specific points was issued to the assessee. The AO was in possession of information that during the course of a search and survey operation on the 'Malpani group on 17/2/2021, the statement of one Shri Nitin Jadav had been recorded wherein Shri Jadev had confirmed that cash of Rs. 7 crores had been given to Shri Vikram Sanjay Kakade (the appellant') for the sale of land in Kolechaphesar village. During the same search, another person one Shri Santosh Sadashiv Bhagat confirmed the statement of Sh. Jadav and stated that cash to the tune of Rs. 50 lacs to Rs. 1.50 crores had been given in 7-8 installments to the appellant for the sale of this land. Another member of the 'Malpani group' one Shri Ashish Madhav Malpani also gave a statement confirming that cash of Rs.7 crores had been paid to the appellant. From these statements the AO come to the conclusion that the appellant had received cash of Rs.7 crores in the property sale transaction and that the same had not been disclosed by the appellant. Accordingly the appellant was show caused as to why this amount of Rs. 7 crores not be added to his income. The assessee replied that the land is question was a parcel of land situated at Gat no. 48, Village Kolechaphesar, Tehsil Maval District Pune and that the same had been Jointly Sold alongwith Shri Sachin Sumatilal Lodha and Smt. Rashmi Sachin Lodha. This price of land had been sold to Verdant Properties LLP for a total consideration of Rs. 1,82,50,000/- as per the sale deed at 3/7/2020. The appellant stated

ITA Nos.2107/PUN/2025 ITA No.2082/PUN/2025 and CO No.12/PUN/2026

that his own share in the sale proceeds come to Rs. 1,23,00,000/- and that he had not received any cash amount over and above this consideration of Rs. 1,23,00,000/-. The appellant further stated that he had been summoned by the Income tax investigation wing through a summons u/s131 and even in his statement recorded under oath he had denied receiving cash of Rs. 7 crore from the Malpani group. The appellant also draw attention to the fact that Shri Ashish Madhav Malpani had retracted his earlier statement and has stated that no cash payment had been made by the Malpani group to the appellant. Lastly, the appellant submitted that this addition of Rs. 7 crores was only based on the statement of third parties and that there was no independent evidence with the AO which could have warranted such an addition. The appellant submitted Judicial decisions of High Counts and Income tax tribunals to support his contention that an addition solely based on the statements of third parties cannot be sustained. I have perused the facts of the case and have examined the order of the AO and also the detailed submissions of the assessee. From a perusal of the AO's order it is clear that the entire addition ofRs 7 crores is based entirely on the statements of three members/employees of the Malpani group which were recorded during the course of a search and survey operation on 17/2/2021. Apart from these statements. the AO has not brought any other independent evidence to corroborate his assertion that the appellant had received Rs.7 crores in cash from the Malpani group. Now, whenever an addition is based on evidence discovered on the premises of a third party or is based on the statements of third parties, certain principles of natural justice have to be strictly followed failing which the assessment loses its force and is reduced to a nullity In this case it is seen that the appellant was not granted an opportunity to cross examine the third parties whose statements had been recorded and neither were the statements of these third parties made available to the assessee. This tantamounts to using 'evidence' against the assessee behind his back and without giving him any opportunity whatsoever to rebut the 'evidence'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries (2015) 281 CTR 214 (SC) held that denial to the assessee of the right to cross examine the witness whose statement was made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity in as much as it amounted to violation of the principles of natural Justice. A number of other High Courts and Tribunals have endorsed the principle mentioned above. A few of these judgments are given as under : In Laxman bhai S. Patel v/s CIT, 327 ITR 281(2010), the Hon'ble High Court of Gujrat has considered the legal effect of a statement recorded behind the back of the assessee and where no copy thereof was furnished to the assessee and neither was an opportunity of cross examination granted. The High Court held that if the addition was made in this manner then the same is required to be deleted on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. In M/s R.W. Promotions (P) Ltd., Mumbai V/s ACIT (ITA No. 1489 of 2013) the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai held that the right to cross examine is a part of the 'Audi

ITA Nos.2107/PUN/2025 ITA No.2082/PUN/2025 and CO No.12/PUN/2026

Alterem principle and the same can be denied only on exceptional and extraordinary grounds and that too after recording them in writing and then communicating the same to the assessee. The Court held that denial of the right to cross examine rendered the order passed against the assessee null and void. In Prarthana Construction (P) Ltd. v/s DCIT (2001) 118 Taxman 112 (ITAT Ahmedabad) it was held that loose papers and documents seized from the premises of third parties and statements recorded behind the back of the assessee without the assessee being afforded any opportunity to cross examine and rebut these statements could not be made the basis for adding undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee. In Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) v/s ACIT (2003) 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) it was held that where the document in question was not recovered from the assessee's possession but was recovered from somebody else's possession and the assessee was not allowed any opportunity to cross examine that person no addition could be made based on such document in the hands of the assessee. Finally, in Kalra Glass Factory v/s Sales Tax Tribunal (1987) 167 ITR 488 the Supreme Court held that it is an elementary principle of natural justice that the assessee should have knowledge of the material that is being used against him so that he may be able to meet it where for instance the statement of a person is recorded or evidence gathered behind the back of the assessee but the same is not tested by cross examination, such a statement or evidence cannot be allowed to be used to the prejudice of the assessee. Hence, from the above discussion it is clear that by not affording the assessee an opportunity to cross examine the members of the Malpani group, who alleged that unrecorded cash transactions with the assessee were carried out, the order of the AO has been vitiated as it violates a fundamental tenet of the principles of natural justice, namely, 'Audi Alterem Partem' ie that the other side will be heard and that no evidence/statement shall be used against the assessee without affording him an opportunity to cross examine and rebut the adverse statement or evidence. On examining the AO's order it is seen that he has simply relied on the statements of members of the Malpani group and has then proceeded to add the amount without bringing on record any evidences whatsoever that the assessee had received unaccounted cash. In conclusion it is held that the AO's order is violative of all principles of natural justice as it was passed by not allowing the assessee an opportunity to cross examine or rebut the statements that were made by third parties and were being used against the assessee. Further, the AO has not produced even a single piece of evidence in his order to establish that the assessee had received any unaccounted cash. Hence, the addition made by the AO of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- u/s 69A is hereby deleted and the assessee's appeal is allowed.

ITA Nos.2107/PUN/2025 ITA No.2082/PUN/2025 and CO No.12/PUN/2026 12. From going through the above finding of ld.CIT(A), we note that ld.CIT(A) has deleted the addition mainly observing that the addition has been made merely on the basis of third party statements alleging the unrecorded cash transaction between the assesssee and Malpani group but no opportunity of cross examination has been provided to the assessee to rebut the statements that were made by the third parties. The fact that the assessee has sold land to the Malpani group namely Vardhan Properties LLP for consideration of Rs.1,82,50,000/- on 03.07.2020 is not in dispute. Assessee’s share in the said sale proceeds is Rs.1.23 crore. Now coming to the information received by the Assessing Officer reference was made to the statements of Mr. Nitin Prakash Jadhav, Mr. Santosh Sadashiv Bhagat and Mr. Ashish Madhav Malpani. In reply to question Nos. 19 to 21 of the statement recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act. Mr. Santosh Sadashiv Bhagat has stated that during the period December 2018 to July 2020 he has handed over cash 7-8 times in the range of Rs.50 lakhs to Rs.1.50 crore to the assessee namely Mr. Vikram Sanjay Kakade over and above the agreement value of land situated at Village Kolechaphesar, Taluka Maval, Pune. He further stated that he has handed over cash to Kakade on direction of Mr. Ashish Madhav Malpani and the overall cash handed was near about Rs.7.00 crore. Another statement is of Mr. Nitin Prakash Jadhav, Business Development Manager recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act. He was specifically asked about the details of cash transaction dealt with by Malpani group to which he stated that there was one deal with Vikram Sanjay Kakade for purchase of land at village Kolechaphesar in which cash component was involved and difference between the agreement value and the market value of land of around Rs.7.00

ITA Nos.2107/PUN/2025 ITA No.2082/PUN/2025 and CO No.12/PUN/2026

crore has been paid in cash to Vijay Kakade. During the statement of Mr. Nitin Prakash Jadhav, search team confronted him with the following two seized material :

ITA Nos.2107/PUN/2025 ITA No.2082/PUN/2025 and CO No.12/PUN/2026

ITA Nos.2107/PUN/2025 ITA No.2082/PUN/2025 and CO No.12/PUN/2026

Kakade promoters, in reply to Question Nos. 21 to 26 following was stated :

“Q.21 Please state the complete details of transactions entered by you or your concerns with Shri Sanjay Kakade, director of Kakade Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ans. I entered into Joint Development agreement through my concern Kings Ville Reality LLP with Kakade Promoters Pvt. Ltd vide registered agreement no 6013/2017 for development of Mtriumph project. In this project, partly RCC work was done but rest of the floors and finishing of the building was to be done by Kings Ville Reality LLP. At the time of Joint Development Agreement, Rs. 10 cr. was given as refundable deposit to Kakade Promoters Pvt. Ltd Further, supplementary agreement was executed on 22.03.2018 vide registration no 2711/2018. (Enclosed as Annexure-II) Vide this agreement, first floor and Maganine area were given to Kakade Promoters Pvt. Ltd and top floor was allotted to Kings Ville Reality LLP Rs. 5 cr. was also given as additional refundable deposit to Kakade Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Kakade Promoters Pvt. Ltd has sold out its share of third floor of Mtriumph having unit no 301 to 307 to Shri Sandeep Jadhav and others. Further due to dispute, we have decided to discontinue the Joint Development agreement and purchased the land of Kakade Promoters Pvt. Ltd. on 30.06.2020 at the consideration of Rs. 70,17,38,350/-(Enclosed Annexure-II) Further, 1 floor and Maganine of Mtruimph was purchased from Kakade Promoters Pvt. Ltd. at Rs. 26,00,00,000/-on 10.12.2020 vide Regd. Deed of assignment no 13004/2020 Again, two unit 303 and 304A was purchased from Sandeep Jadhav vide agreement dated 31.12 2020 at Rs. 7,26,00,000/- Q.22 I am showing you the statement of Shri Nitin Prakash Jadhav, Business Development Manager of Malpani Group recorded on oath u/s 132(4) I am requesting you to go through the answer of Nitin Prakash Jadhav in response to question no- 07, 08 and 10 Please offer your explanation ? Ans. Sir, I confirm the statement of Shri Nitin Prakash Jadhav, Business Development Manager of Malpani Group I have entered into purchase transaction of 1 floor & Maganine and ground floor of Mtrumph project through my concern Kings Ville Reality LLP from Kakade Promoters Pvt. Ltd on 10.12 2020 vide Regd. Deed of assignment no. 13004/2020 The agreement value of said transaction was Rs 26,00,00,000/- Also, I had to pay Rs. 8 cr to Shri Sanjay Kakade, director of Kakade Promoters Pvt. Ltd in cash which is unaccounted and not recorded in my regular books of account over and above the agreement value. Out of 8 cr, I have paid Rs. 5 cr. in cash to Sanjay Kakade as under:- Sr. No. Amount (in Rs.) Remarks 01. 2,00,00,000/- Cash was given to Santosh Bhagat account assistant of Malpani group to deliver to Akshay chitnis, broker who collected cash on

ITA Nos.2107/PUN/2025 ITA No.2082/PUN/2025 and CO No.12/PUN/2026

behalf of Sanjay Kakade. The same was delivered to Sanjay Kadade by Akshay chitnis. 02. 1,00,00,000/- Rs.1,00,00,000/- in cash was delivered to Sanjay Kakade by Santosh Bhagat. 03. 2,00,00,000/- Rs.2,00,00,000/- in cash was delivered to Sanjay Kakade by Santosh Bhagat. Q.23 I am showing you the statement of Shri Nitin Prakash Jadhav, Business Development Manager of Malpani Group recorded on oath u/s. 132(4) I am requesting you to go through the answer of Nitin Prakash Jadhav in response to question no 14. Please offer your explanation. Ans. Sir, I have purchased land at Kolechafesar village in my concern Verdant Properties Pvt. Ltd from Shri Vikram Kakade and others at consideration of Rs. 24,70,41,000/- 1 confirm the statement of Shri Nitin Prakash Jadhav, Business Development Manager of Malpani Group that Rs 7 cr. was paid in cash to Shri Vikram Kakade over and above the agreement value which is unaccounted and not recorded in my books of account. Q.24 Please state in details, how the cash of Rs. 7 cr. was given to Vikram Kakade Ans. Sir, cash of Rs 7 cr. was delivered by Santosh Bhagat, Account Assistant of Malpani Group to Vikram Kakade in installments. However, right now I unable to remember the exact date and amount of installments Q.25 I am showing you the statement of Shri Nitin Prakash Jadhav, Business Development Manager of Malpani Group recorded on oath u/s. 132(4). I am requesting you to go through the answer of Nitin Prakash Jadhav in response to question no 11. Please offer your explanation. Ans. Sir, I go through the statement of Shri Nitin Prakash Jadhav. I confirm the modus operandi of the transactions explained by him As per my instructions, slips are prepared by Nitin Prakash Jadhav. This slip contains the area of land, payment terms and mode of payments. In mode of payment, the ratio of cash and cheque is decided by me which depends upon transaction to transaction. The amount of cash is paid at the time of registration. Shri Santosh Bhagat, Account Assistant of Malpani Group delivers the cash to concerned person as per my instructions. The slips are destroyed as transactions get completed Q.26 I am showing you the statement of Shri Santosh Sadashiv Bhagat, Account Assistant of Malpani Group recorded on oath u/s 132(4) I am requesting you to go through the answer of Santosh Sadashiv Bhagat in response to question no- 18. Please offer your explanation ? Ans. Sir, I go through the answer of Santosh Bhagat Account Assistant of Malpani Group and I confirm that modus operandi explained by him.”

ITA Nos.2107/PUN/2025 ITA No.2082/PUN/2025 and CO No.12/PUN/2026 14. Now on going through the seized material as well as the statement given by three persons referred above, we note that in these statements apart from the transaction of entering into with the assessee there are various other transactions also. It is not known what has been the fate of the other transactions in the search proceedings. Even for the alleged transaction also, there is no reference about the addition if any made in the hands of Malpani group. It is also discernible that in the seized material even during the course of search at Malpani group there is clear mention of transaction with Kakade. There is reference of bank through which sale consideration through banking channel has been made and also there is reference of 4 crore on 01.03.2021 and 3 crore to Kakade along with various other transactions. It is also an admitted fact that in the transactions of immovable properties in various instances coming across the on-money component is there as the market value is much higher to the stamp duty value of the property. Now in the given case, the transaction of the assessee having sold the immovable property to Malpani group is not in dispute and even that has been considered in the computation of short term capital gain and that the very same reference to transaction of sale of immovable property statement by not one but three persons stating the same figure of around Rs.7.00 crore paid in cash to assessee. Certainly, the impugned addition is not based merely on statement of third party because there is seized material and there is evidence of actual transaction through banking channel being carried out then such statements cannot be read merely as the third party statement but they need to be corroborated with the information appearing in seized material and certainly the assessee should be provided an opportunity of cross examination.

ITA Nos.2107/PUN/2025 ITA No.2082/PUN/2025 and CO No.12/PUN/2026 In the instant case, ld.CIT(A) has not dealt any of the seized material referred above nor has made any efforts to examine the factual aspect of the transaction inspite of ld.CIT(A) having coterminous powers with that of the Assessing Officer and has merely dealt with the issue referring to the third party statements and only for the sake of not providing the cross examination has deleted the impugned addition which in our considered view has not been the right way of adjudicating the issue.

ITA Nos.2107/PUN/2025 ITA No.2082/PUN/2025 and CO No.12/PUN/2026

“Ground of appeal no. 2 This ground of appeal relates to an addition of Rs. 31,45,000/- made by the AO on account of unaccounted cash deposits in the assessee's Axis bank account no. 913010023794450. In response to the AO's show cause letter inquiring into the source of these deposits the assessee had replied that it was maintaining three bank accounts namely in AXIS Bank, Yes Bank and in HDFC bank and that the deposit in his Axis bank account was out of withdrawals made from his Yes Bank and HDFC bank account and partly out of withdrawals made from his partnership firm, M/s Kakade Place Mangal Karyalaya. This explanation of the assessee was not accepted by the AO who then proceeded to make an addition of Rs. 31,45,000/- to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. In the appellate proceedings the assessee submitted his cash book for the period 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021. This cash book had also been submitted before the AO during the assessment proceedings. This cash book has been analysed in order to check the authenticity of the assessee's submission. It is seen that on 13.04.2020 the assessee had withdrawn Rs. 4 lacs out of his account in Yes bank and on 14.04.2020 Rs. 5 lacs was withdrawn out of his partnerships firm, M/s Kakade Palace Mangal Karyalay. This total amount of Rs. 9,50,000 has then been deposited in his Axis Bank account on 15.04.2020, 20.04.2020, 27.04.2020 and 30.04.2020. Since the dates on which this total amount of Rs. 9,50,000 was withdrawn and then deposited in Axis Bank are quite close to each other, I am inclined to allow this amount as 'explained. Again an 04.05.2020 there is a withdrawal of Rs. 1,25,000 from HDFC Bank and on the same day an amount of Rs. 75,000/- has been deposited in Axis Banks. This deposit stands explained also. Finally, there is a deposit of Rs. 5 lacs in Axis Bank on 06.10.2020 following a withdrawal of Rs 3 lacs from the same account on 03.10.2020. Hence, out of the deposit of Rs. 5 lacs on 06.10.2020, Rs. 3 lacs stands explained by the withdrawal on 03.10.2020 Hence, in my opinion out of the total cash deposits of Rs. 31,45,000/- in Axis Bank, deposits to the extent of Rs. 13,25,000/- stand explained. The remaining amount of Rs. 18,20,000/-stands disallowed as it is highly unlikely that the assessee should have withdrawn sums from his Axis Bank account, kept them with him for periods that sometimes exceed a months and then finally re-deposited the amounts in the same bank account. I am not inclined to accept this argument of the appellant as this behaviour of the assessee is at variance with the accustomed ways in which people behave and also because it does not pass the test of preponderance of probabilities. To give an illustration from the cash book, the appellant has withdrawn a total amount of Rs.13,43,800/- on various dates viz. 04.05.2020, 26.05.2020, 28.05.2020, 06.06.2020, 10.06.2020, 15.06.2020 and 16.06.2020 and then after keeping these funds with him for over a month has then deposited Rs 6 lacs in Axis Bank on 15.07.2020 and

ITA Nos.2107/PUN/2025 ITA No.2082/PUN/2025 and CO No.12/PUN/2026 Rs. 5 lacs in Axis Bank on 22.07.2020. This type of behaviour, is uncommon and cannot be taken as an adequate explanation of the cash deposits. Hence, for the reasons gives above, the AO's order on this point is confirmed to the extent of Rs.18,20,000/- and relief of Rs.13,25,000/- is given. This ground of appeal is partly allowed.”

ITA Nos.2107/PUN/2025 ITA No.2082/PUN/2025 and CO No.12/PUN/2026

“4.3 During the assessment proceeding as per computation of income submitted by assessee it is seen that STCG worked out for the sale of land bearing GAT No.48 you have shown sale consideration value at Rs.1,23,00,000/- and cost of acquisition taken at Rs. 1,01,82,980/-, accordingly STCG worked out Rs.21,17,020/-. However as per registered sale deed and purchase deed of GAT No.48 submitted by the assessee sale consideration of the property is Rs.1,82,55,000/- and cost of acquisition is Rs.60,00,000/-. Accordingly to this the STCG comes to Rs. 1,22,55,000/-. Further, in the sale transaction of land bearing GAT No. 47 the assessee has shown sale consideration value at Rs.40,00,000/- and cost of acquisition taken at Rs.32,05,500/-, accordingly STCG worked out Rs.7,94,500/-. However as per registered sale deed and purchase deed of GAT No.47 submitted by the assessee sale consideration of the property is Rs.40,00,000/- and cost of acquisition is Rs.17,81,250/-. Accordingly to this the STCG comes to Rs.22,18,750/-. During the assessment proceeding vide show cause notice dated 18/12/2022 the assessee was asked to furnish the explanation with evidence for taking cost of acquisition as mention above. However, the assessee has not provided the requisite details. 4.4 On perusal of your reply it is found that the assessee has not provided any clarification and documentary evidence for your claim of cost of acquisition, sale consideration mention in computation of income. In absence of supporting documentary evidences your claim can not accepted. Therefore in the above mention both transactions you have deliberately offered less STCG and evaded the tax liability. Therefore the STCG earned from the above two transactions totalling to Rs.1,44,73,750/- (e. Rs.1,22,55,000/- by sale of land GAT No. 48 and STCG earned Rs.22,18,750/- by sale of land GAT No.47) added to your total income. Penalty proceeding u/s. 270A of the I.T. Act is initiated separately for under reporting of income. [Addition on account of STCG of Rs. 1,44,73,750/-]”

ITA Nos.2107/PUN/2025 ITA No.2082/PUN/2025 and CO No.12/PUN/2026

“Ground of appeal no. 3 This ground of appeal relates to an addition of Rs. 1,44,73,750/- made by the AO under the head 'Short term capital Gains' on account of two properties sold by the appellant in AY 2021-22. The AO observed that the assessee had sold a parcel of land situated at Gat no. 48, Village Kolechaphesar, Tehsil Maval District Pune for a consideration of Rs. 1,82,55,000/- and whose cost of acquisition was Rs. 60,00,000/-. Accordingly the AO worked out the STCG for this property at Rs. 1,22,55,000/-, For the other property of the appellant at Gat 47, Village Kolechaphesar the AO observed that the property was sold for Rs. 40,00,000/- and its cost of acquisition was Rs. 17,81,250/-, Accordingly, the AO worked out the STCG for this property at Rs. 22,18,750/-. Hence, the AO made a total addition of Rs. 1,44,73,750/- to the assessee's income under the head 'Short Term capital Gains. I have perused the assessment order and have also examined the documents furnished by the appellant. On examining the sale deed dt. 03.07.2020 it is seen that the property at Gat no. 48 Village Kolechaphesar, Taluka Maval, District- Pune was jointly owned by the appellant (Owner no. 1) and Mr Sachin Sumatilal Lodha and Mrs Rashmi Sachin Lodha (Owner no. 2) and the same was sold to M/s Verdant Properties LLP for a total consideration of Rs. 1,82,55,000/-, As per Clause F of this sale deed the appellants share in this consideration came to Rs. 1,23,00,000/-. Further, on looking at the purchase dead for this plot of land, it is seen that the cost of acquisition is Rs. 60,00,000/- and the registration charges are Rs. 3,30,000/-. Hence, the total cost of acquisition is Rs. 63,30,00/-, Accordingly the STCG for this property comes to Rs. 59,70,000/-. Coming now to the property at Gat No. 47, Village Kolechaphesar it is seen on examining the sale and purchase deed that the total sales consideration was Rs. 40,00,000/- and the cost of acquisition alongwith the stamp duty and registration charges come to Rs. 18,88,250/-. Accordingly, the STCG for this property comes to Rs. 21,11,750/-. Hence, the cumulative STCG from both the properties of the assessee comes to Rs. 80,81,750/-. It is also seen that the appellant had already disclosed a STCG of Rs. 29,11,520/- in its return of income filed u/s 139(4). Hence, the addition made by the AO should be restricted to Rs. 57,70,230/-. Accordingly, a relief of 63,92,000/- is provided to the assessee. This ground of appeal is partly allowed. The assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.”

ITA Nos.2107/PUN/2025 ITA No.2082/PUN/2025 and CO No.12/PUN/2026 20. On going through the above observations of ld. Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A), we firstly note that assessee has not provided sufficient clarification and documentary evidences regarding cost of acquisition and also has not provided the details of development expenses of Rs.51,70,230/- and there is difference between the cost of acquisition as worked by the Assessing Officer/CIT(A)/Assessee. Before us, assessee has furnished details of short term capital gain at pages 93 to 229 of the paper book which contains note on the short term capital gains, copies of sale agreements/deeds. It is also claimed that assessee’s share in the sale of land at Village Kolechaphesar is at Rs.1.23 crore as against the sale consideration of Rs.1,82,55,000/- and claim of development expenses has been made after calculating short term capital gain from sale of lant at Gut No.47 and 48, but it is not verifiable whether all these details were available with the Assessing Officer. We therefore deem it proper to restore the issue of calculation of short term capital gain earned by the assessee during the year to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication to be carried out after examining the details of computation of short term capital gain which shall be provided by the assessee. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee shall be provided by ld.JAO. Accordingly, Grounds of appeal No.4 and 5 raised by the assessee in the cross appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA Nos.2107/PUN/2025 ITA No.2082/PUN/2025 and CO No.12/PUN/2026 21. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the appeal and cross objection of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 27th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 27th April, 2026. Satish

Satish Kumar Madishetty Digitally signed by Satish Kumar Madishetty Date: 2026.04.27 15:22:52 +05'30'

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “B” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

// True Copy // Assistant Registrar, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.