BANDU BABURAO CHAVAN,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”ए” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE
BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No.2130/PUN/2024
निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14
Bandu Baburao Chavan,
B/16, Morya Apartment, Patil
Lane No.1, College Road,
Nashik – 422005. Maharashtra.
V s
The Income Tax Officer,
Ward-1(1), Nashik.
PAN: AHQPC4672D
Appellant/ Assessee
Respondent / Revenue
Assessee by Shri Sanket M Joshi – AR
Revenue by Shri Ramnath P Murkunde –CIT(DR)
Date of hearing
11/08/2025
Date of pronouncement 24/09/2025
आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], Delhi passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 08.09.2024 for the A.Y.2013-14 emanating from the Assessment Order under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated
28.09.2021. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
ITA No.2130/PUN/2024 [A]
2
“1] The assessee submits that the notice u/s 148 has been issued by the A.O. on the basis of factually incorrect reasons by blindly relying upon AIR information without any independent application of mind and without independently verifying the sale deed and/or the reply dated
12.09.2015 already filed electronically on the compliance portal and therefore, the said notice u/s 148 issued on 31.03.2020 may be declared as null and void in law.
2] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.
1,31,60,700 towards alleged unexplained investment made in purchase of agricultural land without appreciating that the actual consideration paid for purchase of the said land was only Rs. 19,08,000 as clearly stated in the sale deed against the stamp duty valuation of Rs.1,31,60,700 and therefore, the above addition towards unexplained investment of Rs. 1,31,60,700 was apparently unjustified on facts of the case.
3] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire payment of purchase consideration of Rs.19,08,000 was made through banking channel during A.Y.2015-16 out of explained sources and no payment was made during the year under appeal and therefore, the addition towards unexplained investment made in A.Y.2013-14 was apparently unjustified on facts of the case.
4] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) taxing the difference between actual consideration and stamp duty valuation of land were introduced only w.e.f. A.Y.2014
therefore, they were not applicable for the year under appeal i.e.
A.Y.2013 -14 and hence, there was no reason to confirm any addition for A.Y.2013-14 by relying upon the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act.
ITA No.2130/PUN/2024 [A]
5] Without prejudice to the above grounds, the appellant submits that the assessment proceedings were commenced and completed during
Covid 19 period i.e. between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 and there was a reasonable cause due to which the notices issued by the A.O. could not be complied with by the appellant which resulted into the assessment order being passed ex-parte u/s 144 and hence, it is prayed that the matter may please be restored to the file of the A.O. in the interest of justice, so that the correct income may be determined after considering the submissions of the appellant.
6] The appellant craves, leave to add, alter, amend and delete any of the above grounds of appeal.”
Findings & Analysis :
We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, an order u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 for A.Y.2013-14 was passed in the case of Assessee on 28.09.2021. As per the assessment order, the case was reopened recording the reason that Assessee had purchased immoveable property valued at Rs.1,31,60,700/- as per registered agreement during F.Y.2012-13 and Assessee had not filed Return of Income. Therefore, Assessing Officer had reason to believed that income has escaped assessment to the extent of Rs.1,31,60,700/-. During the Assessment Proceedings, no reply was filed by the Assessee. Hence, Assessing Officer held that source of the immovable property purchased for Rs.1,31,60,700/- remained
ITA No.2130/PUN/2024 [A]
4
unexplained. Accordingly, Assessing Officer assessed the income for A.Y.2013-14 at Rs.1,31,60,700/-.
Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A).
Before the ld.CIT(A), Assessee made elaborate submission. Assessee in his written submission before the ld.CIT(A) submitted that Assessee is an Agriculturalist. Assessee submitted that he had received a letter dated 20.07.2015 from Compliance Management Cell, New Delhi of the Income Tax Department wherein, assessee was required to explain why assessee has not filed Income Tax Return for the impugned year.
In response to the said letter, Assessee submitted that he has purchased the impugned immovable property only for Rs.19,08,000/-. However, the stamp duty value of the property was Rs.1,31,60,700/-. The Assessee had also submitted that the amount of Rs.19,08,000/- was paid through banking out of his agricultural income. However, the Assessing Officer has not considered the said reply filed by the Assessee. Before the ld.CIT(A), Assessee also again filed copy of Bank Statement, copy of Registered Purchase
ITA No.2130/PUN/2024 [A]
5
Deed, copy of Written Submission and copies of the notice dated
20.07.2015 and reply filed. However, ld.CIT(A) passed the order confirming the addition. The relevant paragraph 8.1 of the ld.CIT(A)’s order are reproduced here as under :
ITA No.2130/PUN/2024 [A]
Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), Assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal.
It is noted that ld.CIT(A) has not considered the elaborate submission made by Assessee. We have perused the Registered Sale Deeds dated 03.09.2012 and noted that the impugned Agricultural Land was purchased for Rs.9,66,000/- and Rs.9,42,000/-. However, the value decided for the purpose of stamp duty by the authorities of the State Government was Rs.67,14,000/- and Rs.65,47,000/-.
1 Ld.CIT(A) has failed to consider the submission filed by Assessee and the bank statement. It is noted that Assessee had paid these amounts through Cheques. The details of the cheque number are mentioned in the purchase deed.
In this case on the First page and part of the Second page the Ld.CIT(A) has reproduced incorrect facts, he has mentioned about some other assessee Mrs. Muktabai Baban Shivekar which has no relevance to the present assessee Bandu Baburao Chavan. The relevant part is scanned and reproduced as under :
ITA No.2130/PUN/2024 [A]
1 This shows that the CIT(A) has not applied his mind at all. Since ld.CIT(A) has failed to consider the submission of the assessee(assessee has filed copy of e-Acknowledgement to demonstrate the documents filed) and passed a cryptic order without referring to the elaborate submission of the Assessee, the order passed by ld.CIT(A) is set-aside to ld.CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the necessary documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
ITA No.2130/PUN/2024 [A]
8
9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 24 September, 2025. VINAY BHAMORE
Dr.DIPAK P. RIPOTE
JUDICIAL MEMBER
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
पपणे / Pune; ददिधंक / Dated : 24 Sep, 2025/ SGR
आदेशकीप्रनिनलनपअग्रेनषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपऩलधर्थी / The Appellant.
2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
3. The CIT(A), concerned.
4. The Pr. CIT, concerned.
5. नवभधगऩयप्रनिनिनर्, आयकर अपऩलऩय अनर्करण, “ए” बेंच, पपणे / DR,
ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune.
गधर्ाफ़धइल / Guard File. आदेशधिपसधर / BY ORDER,
////
Senior Private Secretary
आयकर अपऩलऩय अनर्करण, पपणे/ITAT, Pune.