SANDESH VASANTRAO PAWAR,SATARA, MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SATARA, MAHARASHTRA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE
BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2379/PUN/2024
Assessment Year : 2013-14
Sandesh Vasantrao Pawar,
215, Raviwar Peth,
Near Khandoba Mandir,
Satara – 415 001
Maharashtra
PAN : BESPP8793J
Vs.
The Income Tax Officer,
Ward-2, Satara
Appellant
Respondent
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal is filed by the assessee pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14 directed against the order dated
03.07.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) which inturn is arising out of the Assessment Order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147, dated 27.12.2018. Assessee by :
Shri Rahul Kavale
Revenue by :
Shri Vinod Pawar
Date of hearing
:
24.12.2024
Date of pronouncement
:
06.01.2025
Sandesh Vasantrao Pawar
2
2. At the outset, I find the appeal is time barred by 76 days before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit stating that he is unaware of the procedures of law and it took some time to consult legal consultant in the matter This is the precise reason which led to delay in filing the appeal.
3. Having gone through the averments made in the affidavit and in the absence of anything contrary to disbelieve the assessee’s version made therein, I am of the opinion that there was ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated time. I therefore in the larger interest of justice condone the delay of 76 days and proceed for adjudication of appeal.
4. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :
“1. The provision of Section 2(47)(v) in reference to Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, does not apply here, as the developer has not undertaken any construction-related work under the development agreement. Activities such as demolishing old structures, fencing, and installing bore-wells do not qualify as "part performance."
Part performance requires substantial construction actions, such as laying the foundation or obtaining construction plan approvals from the Municipal
Corporation.
Additionally, the developer has not demonstrated a clear Will to perform the Contract.
2. Provision of section 2(47) r.w.s. 45 is not applicable in this case, as per section 45(5A) the appellant will acquire the flat in consideration for the transfer of land. The capital gain will arise only when the Certificate of Completion is issued.
3. As per sec 149(1)(a), notice u/s 148 cannot be issued after lapse of four years from the end of relevant Assessment Year.
Sandesh Vasantrao Pawar
3
4. As per sec 139(1), the filing of Income Tax Return is mandatory only when the total income exceeds maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax.
The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and/or rescind all or any of the Grounds of Appeal on or before the final hearing, if necessity so arises.”
Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is an individual and is running a Gift Articles Shop. The assessee has not filed regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. Based on the information that the assessee along with other 7 co-owners entered into a Development Agreement with M/s. Shri Nath Builders Promoters P. Ltd. and the consideration receivable was in the form of Residential saleable Built-up area of 1189.59 sq.mtrs having value of Rs.2,31,95,500/-, out of which the share of the assessee comes to Rs.46,03,414/- and the fact that the assessee has not filed the return of income, it was opined by the AO that income escaped assessment to tax. The case was reopened by issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. Pursuant to notice u/s.148, the assessee filed the return of income furnished on 25.04.2018 declaring income of Rs.60,800/-. The assessee submitted that even after lapse of five years the Developer has not started the work. Some dispute arose between the Developer and the assesse & the co-owners. A public notice was issued in daily newspaper ‘Dainik Pudhari’ on 14.03.2016 for cancellation of the Sandesh Vasantrao Pawar
4
Joint Development Agreement. The Developer filed a civil suit before the Civil Court, Satara and the case was dismissed the suit vide order dated
17.12.2016
because the plaintiff
(Developer) could not prove the possession of the property as per the Joint Development Entered into between assessee & co- owners with the Developer.
6. During the course of assessment proceedings before the AO, the assessee furnished all the requisite details in response to various notices. However, ld. AO was not satisfied with the submissions putforth by the assessee and came to conclusion that “the assessee has entered into development agreement on 02/03/2013 which was duly registered before Sub