INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4), PUNE, SWARGATE vs. MANGAL BALASAHEB GOLE, KOTHRUD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1209/PUN/2025Status: HeardITAT Pune15 December 2025AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) deleted the addition without seeking a remand report or allowing the Assessing Officer to verify the additional documents. Consequently, the case is remanded to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee a final opportunity to substantiate the cost of acquisition and re-decide the issue as per law.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold agricultural land, reporting long-term capital gains and claiming a deduction under Section 54B. The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 3,05,76,548/- from the cost of acquisition due to inadequate explanation. The CIT(A) subsequently deleted this disallowance.

What were the issues?

Justification of the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance of cost of acquisition without a remand report, and the assessee's failure to furnish proper documentary evidence for the claimed cost.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 48,Section 54B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B Phadke
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to:

1. 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 2.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →