SHRI VIKRAM JANARDHAN BODKE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-9(3), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1931/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 October 2026AY 2008-097 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the facts of the present case are identical to the case of the assessee's brother, Shri Rahul Janardhan Bodke, for the same assessment year, where a similar addition was made. In that case, the Tribunal had restored the issue to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with specific directions. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions that the land might be rural agricultural land and that the sale consideration could be considered in the hands of Mr. Janardhan Eknath Bodke. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A)/NFAC's order was silent on crucial aspects and that the assessee had not filed all requisite documents. Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to give the assessee one opportunity to substantiate his case by filing requisite details. The AO was directed to decide the issue afresh based on facts and law. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Vikram Janardhan Bodke, is an individual who did not file his return of income for assessment year 2008-09. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147, having received information that the assessee sold land at Gahunje Village for Rs. 62,10,000/-. The AO noted that this land was within 8 kms of municipal limits and was purchased by Sahajanand Hitech Construction Pvt Ltd for a project. The AO rejected the assessee's contention that the land was rural agricultural land and that the sale consideration was received in the right of a coparcener, as sale deeds and payment details indicated individual ownership and separate payments to five persons, including the assessee. The AO brought the entire sale consideration of Rs. 62,10,000/- to tax as capital gains. The CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed this addition. The assessee appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the land sold by the assessee is a rural agricultural land, exempt from capital gains tax under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The assessee contended that the land was rural agricultural land. The revenue, through the AO and CIT(A), argued it was not rural agricultural land based on its proximity to municipal limits and zoning information from PMRDA. 2. Whether the sale consideration of Rs. 62,10,000/- was received by the assessee in his individual capacity or in the right of a coparcener? The assessee argued it was in the right of a coparcener and considered in the hands of Mr. Janardhan Bodke. The revenue contended that sale deeds and payment records showed individual receipts by five persons, including the assessee. 3. Whether any deduction towards the cost of acquisition or for claiming deductions under Section 54/54B of the Act is allowable? The AO disallowed any deduction due to lack of evidence. The assessee claimed he could substantiate his case if given an opportunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(14),Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 54,Section 54B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri B.C. Malakar and Yuvraj Chavan
For Respondent: Ms. Bhavya I.V., Jt. CIT-DR

PER R.K. PANDA, VP:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 10.03.2026 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2008-09. 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the addition of Rs.62,10,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under the head ‘Income from capital gains’.

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income. Information was obtained from the Investigation Wing that the company Sahajanand Hitech Construction Pvt Ltd, Mumbai has purchased

2 huge area of land at Gahunje Village, Tal. Maval, Dist. Pune during the financial year 2007-08 towards the company’s project “Lodha Belmondo”. The land in question is situated within 8 kms from the municipal corporation limits.

Accordingly various details of the land owners like name, survey number, area of each plot purchased and amount paid to them were obtained. On verification of the details and on enquiry, the Assessing Officer noted that the land owners, who sold the land have not filed their returns of income nor paid due taxes on the capital gains which might have accrued to them due to sale of agricultural land. He further noted that the assessee has also sold the land for an amount of Rs.62,10,000/- but has not filed his return of income. Therefore, capital gain on consideration received on sale of land has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Assessing Officer accordingly after recording reasons, reopened the assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee.

4.

However, there was no response from the side of the assessee to the said notice or to the subsequent notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, therefore, proceeded to complete the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. However, he noted that the assessee on 04.03.2016 filed a letter stating that the amount received of Rs.36,00,000/- and Rs.26,10,000/- respectively are on account of sale of rural agricultural land situated at Village Gahunje, Talak Maval. The Assessing Officer, therefore, in order to verify the contention of the assessee sought clarification from the Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority

3 (PMRDA) who vide their letter dated 08.03.2016 stated that the land at Gat Nos.237, 229, 230, 231 and 241 of Village Gahunje were situated within the limit of the PMRDA and these lands were at an aerial distance of 250 mtrs to 500 mtrs from the limits of the Pimpri Chinchwas Municipal Corporation. It was further stated that the land in Gat No.241 was under the residential zone and the balance land in Gat Nos.229, 230, 231 and 237 are partly in the residential zone and partly in the agricultural zone. The Assessing Officer, therefore, rejected the contention of the assessee that the lands in question are rural agricultural land and cannot be considered as a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act.

5.

The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee vide his letter dated 04.03.2016 contended that the sale consideration received by him is in the right of coparcener and the same has been considered accordingly in the hands of Mr. Janardhan Bodke. However, this argument of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the registered sale deeds reveal the names of all the five persons including the name of the assessee. The payments have been made to all the five persons separately which have been credited in their respective bank accounts and the names of each and every family member appears in the Index-II of the registered sale documents. Further, each of the family members have received the payments in cheque against their individual names. He, therefore, in absence of any documentary evidence to prove otherwise, rejected the contention of the assessee and brought to tax the capital gain in the hands of the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer in absence of any evidence to substantiate

4 the claim of any deduction whatsoever, did not allow any benefit towards cost of acquisition and taxed the entire sale consideration of Rs.62,10,000/- as capital gain in the hands of the assessee.

6.

In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as under:

7.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset drew the attention of the Bench to the order of the Tribunal in the case of the brother of the assessee Shri Rahul Janardhan Bodke and submitted that the Tribunal vide ITA Nos.150 & 151/PUN/2026 order dated 27.03.2026 for assessment year 2008-09 has restored the issue to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with certain directions. He accordingly submitted that he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with similar directions since the facts of the case of his brother are identical to the facts of the assessee.

8.

The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC.

5

9.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the facts of the instant case are identical to the facts of the case already decided by the Tribunal in the case of Shri Rahul Janardhan Bodke where similar amount was added under the head ‘Income from capital gain’. We find the Tribunal after considering the submissions made by both the sides has restored the issue to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer by observing as under:

“10. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case, in absence of the requisite details as required by him filed by the assessee, determined the long term capital gain at Rs.62,10,000/- in the hands of the assessee being the sale of land by the assessee along with 4 other persons to Sahajand Hitech Construction Pvt. Ltd. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the land in question is a rural agricultural land, capital gain on which is exempt from tax. Further, the land in question is solely owned by Shri Janardhan Eknath Bodke, father of the assessee since he had purchased the land from his own funds. The assessee and the other persons have only signed as consenting parties at the insistence of his father and the buyer namely Sahajanand Hitech Construction Pvt Ltd, Mumbai to avoid any future difficulties. It is also his submission that the addition in the hands of the mother of the assessee, which was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has been set aside by him to the file of the Assessing Officer.

11.

We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC shows that the Assessing Officer in the remand report has categorically mentioned that the lands in question have been purchased by Mr. Janardhan Eknath Bodke in his individual capacity. However, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is silent on this aspect in absence of clear and legible copies of the sale agreements / sale deeds. Further, appeal filed by the mother of the assessee has been set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. We further find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC while deciding the issue against the assessee has also given a finding that the assessee has not filed any documents such as PAN, details of HUF in the name of Bodke, complete and clear and legible copies of sale agreements / deeds for sale of the properties in question and purchase deed in respect of the investment in 6 property for the claim of deduction u/s 54 / 54B of the Act. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details. Since the issue in hand requires detailed verification of documents, therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer with a direction to give one opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to submit the requisite details before the Assessing Officer on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the Assessing Officer is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.”

10.

Since the facts of the present case are identical to the facts of the case already decided by the Tribunal in the case of the brother of the assessee, therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh as per fact and law in light of the order of the Tribunal in the case of the brother of the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

11.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 14th October, 2026. (ASTHA CHANDRA) VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 14th October, 2026 GCVSR

7 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपील र्थी / The Appellant; 1. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent

3.

The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune

4.

DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, //// Sunil Kumar More

More judgments on Section 2(14)

All 1,130 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(14) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →