Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2012-13. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee had not filed a return of income and received information regarding the sale of immovable property. The AO added a portion of the sale consideration to the assessee's income as long-term capital gain.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the sale deed mentioned specific sellers and that the assessee's name appeared as a vendor. However, it was also noted that the assessee had two PAN numbers, and the return filed pertained to a different PAN than the one used in the assessment order, preventing the AO from verifying the return's contents.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of sale consideration as long-term capital gain was justified when the assessee claimed no consideration was received and had dual PANs, leading to a discrepancy in the return filed versus the assessment order.
Sections Cited
250, 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE
Before: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA & DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE
Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs.Surekha Hanumantrao V The Income Tax Officer, Pawar, s. Ward-14(1), Pune. Sr.No.47, Sunita Nagar, Vadgaon Sheri, Pune - 411014. Maharashtra. PAN: BHEPP5383D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Digambar Surwase – AR Revenue by Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 10/06/2025 Date of pronouncement 11/06/2025 आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the A.Y.2012-13 dated 02.07.2024.
The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
“1. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, the learned CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in dismissing the appeal of appellant for non- prosecution. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief.
2. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, the learned CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in confirming addition made by learned AO of Rs.83,84,516/-. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief.
On facts and circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.78,75,000/- as long-term capital gain even though no consideration was received by appellant. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief.
4. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.4,00,260/- under the head income from house property. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief.
5. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,09,256/- under the head business or profession. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal
.” Findings and Analysis :
3. We have heard Ld.AR for the Assessee and Ld.DR for the Revenue, perused the records. There was a delay in filling appeal. In the interest of justice, we condone the delay.
3.1 In this case in the Assessment Order the Assessing Officer has noted that Assessee had not filed Return of Income for AY 2012-13. The Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order has noted that Income tax Department received Information regarding sale of immovable property by the assessee during the year vide Document Number 6480/2011 for Rs.3,93,75,000/-. The relevant paragraph 3 of the Assessment Order is reproduced here as under : “03. As per the information available with the department, the assessee has entered into an immovable property transaction of Rs.3,93,75,000/-. The sale consideration received is not clear from the agreement and the assessee has not made any submission. Further, the assessee has not claimed any cost of acquisition or indexation benefit. Therefore, assessee being one of the five sellers, 1/5th of the sale consideration of Rs.3,93,75,000/- amounting to Rs.78,75,000/- is added to the total income of the assessee under the head income Long Term Capital Gain. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately for concealment of income.”
Thus, in the Assessment Order the AO has mentioned that Sale Consideration received is not clear. However, we have noted that in the Sale Deed dated 29/12/2011 (page 48-74 of Paper book) the entire details of Sale, immovable property and sale consideration are mentioned. On perusal of the said Sale Deed it is observed that Mr.Vithalrao S. Derange, Dattatray S. Derange, Manisha V Pathare, Surekha H Pawar, Sadhana Raju Jagtap appears as Vendors or Sellers. It is the pleading of the Assessee that the Assessee was mere consenting party and Assessee never received any consideration.
However, it is also a fact that Assessee’s name appears as Vendor. As per the Report filed by the Ld.DR, the Vendor Number-1 Mr. Vitthalrao Shripati Derange PAN APXPD2691C had not filed Return of Income for A.Y.2012-13. Mr.Dattatray Sambhaji Dherange and Manisha Vasant Pathare the other two Vendor, had filed Return for A.Y.2012-13. It is observed that neither the Assessing Officer nor the ld.CIT(A) has appreciated the facts properly. However, it is an admitted fact by the Ld.AR that Assessee was having TWO PAN Numbers at that point of time. Ld.AR filed copy of return of Income filed by the Assessee for AY 2012-13 with PAN ACMPP8531F. The present appeal pertains to the Assessment Order having PAN BHEPP5383D. Therefore, the AO had no opportunity to verify the contents of the Return filed by the assessee.
4.1 In these facts and circumstances of the case, as requested by the Ld.AR, we set aside the impugned Assessment Order to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication. The AO shall provide opportunity to the Assessee and Assessee shall file all details before the AO.
In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11th June, 2025.