PRAMOD DWIVEDI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 597/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 October 2026AY 2024-258 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pramod Dwivedi, filed an appeal before the ITAT Raipur Bench against the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2024-25. The appeal challenges the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 40,00,000/-. The assessee had sold rural agricultural land for a registered sale consideration of Rs. 1 crore. However, the assessee's bank account showed aggregate credits of Rs. 1.40 crore from the same purchaser, including an RTGS credit of Rs. 40 lakh on the sale deed execution date. The assessee claimed this additional amount as solatium/compensation for standing agricultural crop, trees, and improvements, arguing it retained the character of exempt agricultural income as the land was not a capital asset. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition, holding that no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the claim, and the excess receipt was undisclosed income.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the submissions of both parties and the interest of substantive justice, decided to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to furnish details before the First Appellate Authority. The issue of the Rs. 40,00,000/- addition (Grounds 2-8) was restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for denovo adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized that this is a final opportunity and the assessee must comply with hearing notices and furnish all relevant evidence. Similarly, Ground of appeal No. 9 regarding the disallowance of exemption under Section 10(13A) was also restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for denovo adjudication. Grounds 1 and 11 were noted as general, and Ground 10 as consequential. The ratio decidendi is that in the interest of justice, a final opportunity for presenting evidence can be granted to the assessee, especially when the revenue does not object to a remand, allowing for a fresh adjudication by the lower appellate authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- by holding that no documentary evidence was produced, despite the assessee's contention of an undertaking dated 20.03.2024 and the receipt forming part of Schedule EI of the return of income, turning on the nature and source of the receipt and the applicability of Section 69A or other deeming provisions. 2. Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in not appreciating the nexus of the receipt with the transfer of rural agricultural land, which is not a capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii), and with the standing crop and improvements thereon, and in sustaining the addition in the absence of any charging provision, as no clause of Section 56(2) was invoked. 3. Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in not directing an enquiry under Section 133(6) from the purchaser. 4. Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in not holding that the part of the receipt relating to standing agricultural produce is agricultural in nature and exempt under Section 10(1). 5. Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of exemption of Rs. 3,08,544/- claimed under Section 10(13A), though computed in accordance with Rule 2A and the rent was offered to tax by the landlord. Assessee's Contentions: - The Rs. 40 lakh was solatium/compensation for standing crops, trees, and improvements on rural agricultural land, which is not a capital asset, thus retaining its exempt character. (Grounds 2-5) - The CIT(Appeals) failed to consider the undertaking dated 20.03.2024 and that the receipt was disclosed in Schedule EI. (Grounds 2, 3) - The addition was sustained without invoking any charging provision like Section 56(2). (Ground 6) - Enquiry under Section 133(6) from the purchaser was not directed. (Ground 7) - The portion relating to standing produce should be exempt under Section 10(1). (Ground 8) - Exemption under Section 10(13A) of Rs. 3,08,544/- was wrongly disallowed. (Ground 9) Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue did not raise any objection on principle for remanding the matter back to the file of the CIT(Appeals).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(14)(iii),Section 69A,Section 10(1),Section 10(13A),Section 56(2),Section 133(6),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “DB”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CA
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.10.2026Pronounced: 07.10.2026

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:

The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 01.07.2026 for the assessment year 2024-25 as per the following revised grounds of appeal:

“1. That the order of the learned CIT(A) is bad in law and on facts and is liable to be set aside.

2.

That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.40,00,000/- by recording that no documentary evidence was produced, without

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 2(14)(iii)

All 236 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(14)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →