AARTI JADHAV GAIKWAD ,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 12, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 742/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 September 2025AY 2017-188 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments but noted that both the AO and CIT(A)/NFAC had not appreciated the facts correctly. The Tribunal observed that while the CIT(A) acknowledged that stocks worth Rs. 13,43,083/- were acquired in FY 2017-18 (AY 2018-19), he still confirmed the addition for AY 2017-18, stating they were not offered for tax in AY 2018-19. However, the facts indicated that the cost of acquisition of these impugned stocks was included in Form 16 as a perquisite for AY 2018-19, amounting to Rs. 10,82,612/-. Regarding the difference of Rs. 8,10,190/-, the assessee argued it arose from valuing stocks at the filing date instead of the acquisition date, and that Rs. 8,91,570/- was already offered as perquisite. The Tribunal deemed it fit to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restore the matter to the AO for re-examination of the issues, granting appropriate relief after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to provide full support with requisite details and evidence. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Aarti Jadhav Gaikwad, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The case was selected for limited scrutiny regarding foreign assets. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 30,44,843/- on account of difference in investment in capital assets, stating that the assessee acquired stocks worth Rs. 30,44,843/- under an ESOP scheme during AY 2017-18 but failed to provide complete details. The assessee contended that a portion of the addition (Rs. 13,43,083/-) related to stocks acquired in FY 2017-18 (AY 2018-19), another portion (Rs. 8,91,570/-) was already offered to tax as salary perquisite, and the remaining difference (Rs. 8,10,190/-) was due to a wrong valuation date. The CIT(A)/NFAC partially allowed the appeal, deleting Rs. 8,91,570/- but confirming the addition of Rs. 13,43,083/- and Rs. 8,10,190/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 13,43,083/- relating to stock acquisition dates falling in FY 2017-18 (AY 2018-19) is sustainable for AY 2017-18? - Assessee's contention: These stocks were acquired in AY 2018-19 and offered for taxation in that year. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition for AY 2017-18 and wrongly stated they were not offered for AY 2018-19. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 8,10,190/-, representing the difference between the value of stock options exercised as of the filing date of the return and the date of acquisition, is correct? - Assessee's contention: This amount is a difference between the wrongly adopted value as of the filing date (09.02.2018) and the cost of acquisition. The correct value of stock options exercised as perquisite is Rs. 8,91,570/-, which was already offered to tax. The excess of Rs. 8,10,190/- should be deleted. - Revenue's contention: The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, stating the assessee herself submitted the cost on the date of acquisition as Rs. 17,01,760/- and did not provide supporting documentary evidence for the claim of Rs. 8,91,570/- being the perquisite value. The addition of the difference was justifiable as Rs. 8,91,570/- was already included in salary. 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not providing the assessee with a copy of the remand report called from the AO? - Assessee's contention: The CIT(A) did not act justly or fairly by not showing the remand report and confirming the addition. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 234B,Section 234A,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM :

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against theorder dated 24.02.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC"] pertaining to Assessment Year(“AY”) 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "

1.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.13,43,083/- which as per dates of acquisition stated in Return relate to A.Y.2018-19. Appellant Prays to delete the same.

2.

CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of RS. 13,43,083/-only for the reason that according

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 142(1)

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →