LATE SHRI KHEMRAJ PATIDAR (THROUGH WIFE AND LEGAL HEIR SMT. BHAGWATI PATIDAR),BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 2(4), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Page 1 of 10
आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौरɊायपीठ, इंदौर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
INDORE BENCH, INDORE
BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Assessment Year: 2012-13
Late Shri Khemraj Patidar,
(Through wife and legal heir Smt. Bhagwati
Patidar),
Bhopal
बनाम/
Vs.
ITO 2(4)
Bhopal
(Assessee/Appellant)
(Revenue/Respondent)
PAN: CBXPK1838C
Assessee by Shri Arpit Gaur, AR
Revenue by Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing
06.11.2025
Date of Pronouncement
11.11.2025
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 04.01.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 25.11.2019 passed by learned
ITO-2(4), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 144/147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:
“1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the action of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the additions to the extent of Rs
43,01,000/-made by the Id. AO in the appellant's income for the Late Shri Khemraj Patidar
ITA No. 748/Ind/2024 – AY 2012-13
Page 2 of 10
relevant assessment year, is quite unjustified, unwarranted and bad- in-law
2. That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the Id.
AO for making an addition of Rs.43,01,000/- in the appellant's income on the allegation of undisclosed capital gain without properly considering and appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant and as also, without properly considering the submissions of the appellant made before both the authorities below along with relevant documentary evidences.
3. That, both the learned authorities below have grossly erred in fact and in law by failing to consider the detailed submission of the appellant regarding the nature of the agricultural land in question. The appellant had categorically demonstrated that the land in question was continuously and exclusively used for agricultural purposes, and therefore, all transactions relating to it are exempt from capital gains tax under the provisions of Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is explicitly stated in the sale deed that the land is irrigated, cultivated, and situated beyond the municipal limits.
4. That, without prejudice to the above, both the learned authorities below further grossly erred in computing the capital gains by disregarding the deductions allowable under Section 48 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961, which mandates the deduction of (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer, and (ii) the cost of acquisition of the asset. In the present case, the AO failed to consider the expenses on transfer and the cost of acquisition, leading to an erroneous computation of capital gains. The Id. CIT(A) should have quashed this erroneous computation, but instead, upheld the AO's flawed assessment.
5. That, without prejudice to the above, the learned Assessing Officer unjustly issued notices and pursued the appellant, Late Shri Khemraj
Patidar, despite the fact that the transaction in question was between
Shri Lakhanlal Patidar and Shri Rajesh. The appellant had long relinquished any interest in the land, transferring all rights to Shri
Lakhanlal Patidar well before the transaction. The appellant received no consideration from the deal, as evident from his bank records. The ld. CIT(A) overlooked this crucial fact and passed an arbitrary order, causing grave injustice to the appellant.
6. That, without prejudice to the above, both the learned authorities below further erred by treating the sum credited to the appellant's bank account as taxable income, despite the appellant's clear

Late Shri Khemraj Patidar
ITA No. 748/Ind/2024 – AY 2012-13
Page 3 of 10
submission that his only source of income is agriculture, which is exempt from tax. The Id. CIT(A) failed to completely rectify this wrongful addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- and confirmed an addition to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- in the hands of the appellant on account of unexplained cash deposits in bank account.
7. That the Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the appellant's advanced age, illiteracy, and lack of awareness of the intricacies of the Income Tax
Act.
The ld.
CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal on humanitarian and legal grounds by rectifying the multiple errors committed by the AO, including: (i) adding the income of third parties to the appellant's income: (ii) treating exempt agricultural income as taxable; (iii) failing to allow statutory deductions such as basic exemptions applicable to super senior citizens, and the cost of acquisition in the calculation of capital gains, and (iv) assuming a higher sale consideration without obtaining a proper valuation report.
It is evident that the assessment was conducted with the sole intent of inflating the revenue figures, disregarding the principles of fairness and justice.
8. That, the appellant further craves leave to add, alter or amend the foregoing ground of appeal as and when considered necessary.”
2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee did not file any return of AY 2012-13 under consideration. The AO, on the basis of information in his possession revealing that the assessee sold a land on 21.03.2012 for Rs. 30,00,000/- [Stamps Authority Valuation
– Rs. 37,01,000/- u/s 50C] and also made a cash deposit of Rs. 11,00,000/- in bank A/c, initiated proceeding of section 147 through notice dated
26.03.2018 u/s 148 calling the assessee to file return. However, the notice issued by AO remained uncompiled by assessee. Thereafter, the AO issued notices u/s 142(1) which were partly complied by assessee. As per notings made by AO in Para 2 of assessment-order, the assessee replied that no ITR was filed since there was only agricultural income. Further, the assessee

Late Shri Khemraj Patidar
ITA No. 748/Ind/2024 – AY 2012-13
Page 4 of 10
also replied that the matter belonged to old year and the documents were not available with him. Hence, the assessee requested AO for giving more time. Thereafter, the AO collected direct information from bank u/s 133(6) and again issued notice giving last opportunity to assessee but this notice also remained uncompiled. Ultimately, the AO completed best judgement assessment u/s 144 wherein he made two additions, namely (i) an addition of Rs. 37,01,000/- equivalent to the Stamps Authority Valuation of sold property, (ii) unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 11,00,000/- in Bank a/c.
Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first appeal. During first-appeal, the assessee made submissions whereupon the CIT(A) called remand-report from AO.
The AO filed remand-report.
After considering assessee’s submissions and remand-report, the CIT(A) decided first-appeal giving a part-relief of Rs. 5,00,000/- out of addition (ii) of Rs. 11,00,000/-. Still not satisfied with the relief granted by CIT(A), the assessee has come in next appeal before us.
3. Ld. AR at the start of hearing submitted that the original assessee in this case was “Shri Khemraj Patidar, Bhopal” who had already expired and presently
“Smt.
Bhagwati
Patidar”
is pursuing this appeal as Legal
Representative [“L/R”]. He submitted that “Smt. Bhagwati Patidar - L/R is a widowed lady; she is herself aged 90 years and does not have much details/documents but trying to get the issues resolved in her late husband’s case. Ld. AR submitted that he himself is also helping the widowed and 90 years aged lady to serve the profession and humanity and Late Shri Khemraj Patidar
ITA No. 748/Ind/2024 – AY 2012-13
Page 5 of 10
for proper disposal of case. Therefore, with folded hands, he made a humble prayer that this Court should give most judicious relief after hearing the facts and issues involved. Ld. DR is also fair enough in accepting the submissions and prayer of Ld. AR.
4. We have heard learned Representatives of both sides and perused the case record including the orders of lower-authorities. We have carefully examined the issues involved and the prayer being made by Ld. AR representing assessee. There are two issues involved in present case. We would deal these issues one by one.
Issue of capital gain on sale of land:
5. The first issue is with regard to the addition of Rs. 37,01,000/- made by AO on account of capital gain from sale of land. Undisputably, the AO has made addition equivalent to the full consideration (Stamps Authority
Valuation) of sold property u/s 50C.
The Ld.
AR raised three-fold objections/prayers in this regard:
(i)
Page No. 3 of the registered sale-deed of impugned land, available at Page 12 of Paper-Book, clearly mentions that the land was situated in a ‘Village – Bilkhiriya’ outside the municipal limit of Bhopal Nagar
Nigam. He admitted that although the sale-deed does not reflect the exact distance from municipal limit but, however, he has received information that it was outside the distance prescribed in section Late Shri Khemraj Patidar
ITA No. 748/Ind/2024 – AY 2012-13
Page 6 of 10
2(14)(iii)(b). Therefore, the impugned land deserves exclusion from the definition of ‘capital asset’ in terms of section 2(14)(iii) and accordingly the resultant gain is not taxable.
(ii)
The AO has assessed full value of consideration of Rs. 37,01,000/-
(Stamps Authority Valuation) as taxable capital gain without giving deduction of ‘cost’. This approach of AO is very much against the ‘mode of computation’ prescribed in section 48 of the Act. Ld. AR pointed out that the impugned land was an ancestral land and even if the details/documents of ‘cost’ were not available, the fair market value of land as on 01.04.1981 has to be allowed as ‘cost of acquisition’ in terms of section 55(2)(b)(i) of the Act, which has not been done by AO.
(iii)
The AO has adopted Stamps Authority Valuation of Rs. 37,01,000/- by picking the endorsement made by office of sub-