SAVITA SUDARSHAN PANCHMIND (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SUDARSHAN SITARAM PANCHMIND ) ,PUNE vs. ITO, WD-13(2), PUNE

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE BENCH ‘SMC’, PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 1976/PUN/2026 (िनधा�रणवष�/AssessmentYear:2018-19) Savita SudarshanPanchmind ITO, WARD 13(2), (L/H of Late Pune SudarshanSitamPanchmind), Vs. 273, MangalwarPeth, Pune 411001 अपीलाथ�Appellant ��यथ� Respondent Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AHNPP6011G अपीलाथ��ारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Kishor B Phadke, CA ��यथ��ारा/Respondentrepresented by: Shri Rohit P. Nagar, Sr. DR सुनवाईक�तारीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 13.10.2026 घोषणाक�तारीख/Date of pronouncement: 16.10.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.02.2026 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case as emerging from the record are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed any return for the year under consideration. Based on the information available on the Insight Portal under Non-filing category which suggested that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, case of the assessee was reopened u/s.148 after taking prior approval of competent authority u/s.151 of the Act.

ITA 1976/PUN/2026 Savita SudarshanPanchmind 3. In response to notice u/s.142(1), the legal heir of the assessee has responded and stated that assessee has expired on 06.05.2021. The death certificate was placed on record. Legal heir has also furnished the reply giving the details of the issue under consideration and stated that the same relates to transfer of open plot of land which was purchased by the deceased assessee in the year 1984. The assessee has entered into an agreement dated 18.10.2017. Total area of the land transferred is 600 sq.mtrs. and out of the sale consideration of Rs.72,60,000/- the share of the assessee is only 8.90%. which comes to Rs.6,46,140/-. The assessee also claimed deduction u/s 54F of the IT Act. 4. However, Ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the reply furnished by the legal heir and in the absence of any supporting document, he disallowed the deduction claimed u/s.54F of the IT Act at Rs.6,46,140/-. Income of the assessee determined at Rs.10,12,010/- considering the salary of the assessee at Rs.3,65,871/-. 5. The First Appellate Authority, treated the said land as capital asset however, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer who treated the consideration as undisclosed income. Against the said order, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal by raising the following grounds/additional grounds of appeal : “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by upholding the additions made by the learned AO in assessing the total income of the appellant as Rs. 10,12,010/- by way of making additions to the total income of the appellant as follows: Rs. 3,65,871/- on account of undisclosed salary income. Rs. 6,46,140/-on account of sale of immovable property. 2. The Learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in not granting any opportunity of being heard before passing the order u/s

ITA 1976/PUN/2026 Savita SudarshanPanchmind 250 of the ITA, 1961 dated 26/02/2026. The learned CIT(A) passed the impugned order without giving any notice of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The order passed is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 3. The learned AO erred in law while making the addition on account of undisclosed long-term capital gain in regard to the transfer of land under development agreement in the instant case. As such, the appellant contends that, no taxability for the present transaction would arise until receipt of completion certificate i.e. 31/03/2022. 4. Alternatively, without prejudice to the above grounds, the Learned AO erred in law and on facts in not granting exemption to the appellant in respect of long-term capital gains. The learned AO failed to appreciate that the consideration arising from the impugned transaction is receipt of a residential house, thereby fulfilling the conditions prescribed u/s 54F of the Act. 5. The appellant craves leave to add/modify/amend/delete all / any of the grounds of appeal.” Additional Grounds : “5. The learned AO erred in law and on facts in framing the order u/s 147 of ITA, 1961, on 22/03/2024, despite the fact that the late MrSudarshanPanchmid had expired on 06/05/2021 & despite noting the same vide death certificate submitted during the reassessment proceedings and the same is reproduced in the order. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal without affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and without appreciating the facts already available on record. 7. The appellant prays for such costs, including legal expenses and appeal fees incurred in pursuing the present appeal, as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deems fit and proper.” 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The issue relates to denying the claim of the assessee u/s.54F of the Act. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that before

ITA 1976/PUN/2026 Savita SudarshanPanchmind passing the impugned order Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not given any opportunity, violated the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that assessee has not received any monetary consideration but in lieu has received a residential house, which fact is clearly discernible from the Joint Development Agreement itself. The possession of the new property is handed to the legal heirs (however with some delay due to covid pandemic) and therefore, the assessee fulfils the conditions for claiming deduction u/s.54F and the same should be allowed. 7. We have perused the Joint Development Agreement entered into between Balaji Construction and the assessee with other two co-owners. On page 5 of the said Agreement, it is clearly mentioned that an area admeasuring 483.sq.ft. carpet area will be given to the assessee, who is the co-owner mentioned at Sl.No.3. Thus, it is established that the assessee has not received any monetary consideration against the said alleged transaction and in lieu only a residential property has been received to the assessee. Apart from that, we also find that the benefit of cost of acquisition/indexed cost of acquisition has not been given to the assessee since the property was admittedly acquired by the assessee in the year 1984 & was transferred in the year 2017 i.e. on 18-10-2017. Even if deduction u/s 54F is not allowed to the assessee the benefit of deduction of cost of acquisition & indexed cost of acquisition should have been allowed by the Assessing Officer and by Ld. CIT(A), which they failed to provide. Considering all these factual aspects, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee fulfils the conditions for claiming deduction u/s.54F of the IT Act since in lieu of whole of the consideration new flat was receivable & no cash consideration was received by the assessee & the new flat was subsequently received by the legal heir of the assessee. We therefore allow the deduction u/s.54F of the IT Act and delete the addition made by

ITA 1976/PUN/2026 Savita SudarshanPanchmind the Assessing Officer. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th October, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 16th October, 2026 Sujeet/DOC Copy to: Savita SudarshanPanchmind (L/H of Late SudarshanSitamPanchmind), 1 273, MangalwarPeth, Pune 411001 2 ITO, WARD 13(2), Pune 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, PUNEBENCH 5 GUARD FILE आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, Digitally signed by Sunil Kumar // True Copy // Sunil Kumar More More Assistant Registrar Date: 2026.10.25 10:42:03 +05'30' आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune