SHRI SHAMRAO SHRIPATI PATIL,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), KOLHAPUR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1420/PUN/2024
िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2010-11
Shri Shamrao Shripati Patil,
54 E Ward, Kadamwadi
Road, Karveer,
Dist. Kolhapur- 416005. PAN : BCAPP0373C
Vs. ITO,
Ward-2(3),
Kalhapur.
Appellant
Respondent
आदेश / ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.09.2023 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
“1] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition on account long term capital gain of Rs 51,48,983/- in assessment year
2010-11 when the final sale deed was executed on 20th May 2010 i.e. in AY 2011-12. 2]
The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the sale deed executed on 04th September 2009 was incomplete as some of the Assessee by : None
Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai
Date of hearing
: 06.03.2025
Date of pronouncement : 22.05.2025
2
co-owners were not present and that the actual transfer of land was executed on 20th May 2010 when the parties to the sale deed executed a confirmation deed on 20th May 2010. 3]
The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
4]
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or delete and of the above grounds of appeal.”
There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the affidavit for condonation that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Ld. DR has not raised any objection to condone the delay therefore, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not furnished its return of income. On the basis of NMS data available in the system, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has sold immovable property of more than Rs.30,00,000/- and accordingly after taking approval of the appropriate authority notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) and 144(1) were issued to the assessee, however, the assessee did not responded. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 133(6) of the IT Act to the Joint Sub-