AJINATH SANTRAM KHARAT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), NASHIK, NASHIK

Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ajinath Santram Kharat, V The Addl./JCIT(A), Flat No.K-1102, 24 K Stargaze, s Panaji. Koltepatil Developers, Sr.No.76 to 89, Bavdhan, Pune – 411021. PAN: ACXPK5630R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri harshan Nasikkar– AR Revenue by Shri Ratnakar Shelake – Addl.JCIT(DR) Date of hearing 02/01/2025 Date of pronouncement 31/01/2025 आदेश/ ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in upholding addition to the extent of Rs.8,50,834/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the I.T.Act 1961, on account of difference between the actual purchase consideration of agricultural land at Pali, Taluka Sudhagad, Dist. Raigad and the value as per stamp valuation authorities, not appreciating that the land purchased was agricultural land and not being a capital asset, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) were not attracted and that all evidences relied upon were before the ld AO and no additional evidences were filed before Hon CIT(A) and therefore dismissal of this ground by the Hon CIT(A) was not justified and consequent addition be kindly deleted.

Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case the Ld.AR has filed a paper book. Ld.AR submitted Ld.CIT(A) has erroneously dismissed the Appeal of the assessee filed against Order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 27/12/2019 stating that the Assessee has filed an application under DTVSV. Ld.AR took us through us the order of the Ld.CIT(A) wherein the Ld.CIT(A) has mentioned Form Number 3 having No.923588670281220. Ld.AR took us through the Form Number 3 having number 923588670281220 which is at page 56 of the paper book. Ld.AR demonstrated that the aid form was filed for Penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act , where as the Appeal dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) was against the addition made in the assessment order. We have carefully studied the Ld.CIT(A)’s order and the Form Number 3 of DTVSV. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced here under :

3. The perusal of Form No.3 explains that the Form No.3 is for Rs.10,000/- only which is a penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Ld.DR has accepted the facts. Thus there is apparent mistake in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Ld.AR submitted that he had made a petition before ld.Pr.Chief Commissioner[NFAC] along with the Affidavit to correct the mistake apparent from record. However, ld.Pr.CC has not corrected it, hence, Assessee had to file appeal before ITAT.

3.1 We have verified the facts and there is an apparent mistake. Ld.CIT(A) mistakenly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we set- aside the order dated 29/04/2024 for A.Y.2015-16 passed by Ld.CIT(A)/ Addl.CIT(A) to Ld.CIT(A) for de-novo- adjudication. The ld.CIT(A) shall decide the appeal on merits. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Condonation of Delay : 5. There was a Delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal. We have perused the submission of the assessee and are convinced that there was sufficient cause for delay. Accordingly, we condoned the delay. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31st January, 2025.