GUNA CHANDRA SEELA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-10(1), GUDUR

ITA 1761/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 October 2026AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's submission that no sale consideration was received and that litigation was pending regarding the cancellation of the sale document, found it appropriate to follow the precedent set by its coordinate Bench in the case of Shri Harish Kumar Gaddipati vs. ITO. In that case, the Tribunal had remanded the issue to the AO for de novo consideration, acknowledging that the agreement of sale-cum-GPA might not represent a complete legal transfer of title and that the assessee's claim for cancellation of the registration document was pending before the High Court. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO for reconsideration in accordance with the law, with directions for a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee and for the assessee to cooperate with the AO. The Tribunal explicitly mentioned that the addition in the present appeal related to the same sale transaction as in the cited precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Guna Chandra Seela, filed an appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 25/08/2025, for Assessment Year 2010-11. The core issue pertains to an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) concerning capital gains from the sale of property, which the assessee had not offered for taxation. The assessee contended that there was a dispute regarding the alleged sale transaction, that no sale consideration was received, and that litigation was ongoing. The assessee relied on previous decisions of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal concerning co-owners of the same property.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of capital gains earned by the assessee on the sale of property, which was not offered for taxation, is sustainable in law? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that there was a dispute concerning the alleged sale transaction and that no sale consideration was received. Litigation was also ongoing between the parties. The assessee relied on two decisions of the coordinate Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of Shri Mallikarjuna Prasad Kosaraju vs. ITO and Shri Harish Kumar Gaddipati vs. ITO, where similar matters involving co-owners of the same land sale transaction were remanded to the AO for de novo consideration. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON’BLE

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 25/08/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. ITA 1761/HYD/2025 GUNA CHANDRA SEELA

2.

The sole issue involved in this appeal relating to the addition made by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “AO”) on account of capital gains earned by the asses

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 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →