ARJAN LILA GORANIYA,PORBANDAR vs. ITO WARD 2(4), PORBANDAR

Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 65,20,805/ That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 65,20,805/-on That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 65,20,805/ account of unexplained i investment u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

The appeal filed by the assessee by the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14, is barred by , is barred by limitation by 429 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The The Learned Counsel for the assessee, explained the Counsel for the assessee, explained the reasons for such delay stating that reasons for such delay stating that the appeal before ITAT, Rajkot is to be the appeal before ITAT, Rajkot is to be filed within 60 days, from the date of receipt of the order of Ld. CIT(A) from the date of receipt of the order of Ld. CIT(A), that is, on from the date of receipt of the order of Ld. CIT(A) 30/03/2024. The notice for hearing before the Commissioner Appeals has been he notice for hearing before the Commissioner Appeals has been he notice for hearing before the Commissioner Appeals has been served on email id of erstwhile consultant, the consultant duly complied with served on email id of erstwhile consultant, the consultant duly complied with served on email id of erstwhile consultant, the consultant duly complied with the notices, however, the consultant failed to inform that the Commissioner of wever, the consultant failed to inform that the Commissioner of wever, the consultant failed to inform that the Commissioner of appeals has passed order by confirming the addition made by appeals has passed order by confirming the addition made by assessing officer. assessing officer. Therefore, because of the mistake of the tax consultant, such delay has Therefore, because of the mistake of the tax consultant, such delay has Therefore, because of the mistake of the tax consultant, such delay has occurred. Besides, assessee is a occurred. Besides, assessee is a farmer and engaged in agricultural activities nd engaged in agricultural activities since past many years and assessee is and assessee is not techno savvy and educated to read and not techno savvy and educated to read and understand the notices, therefore, herefore, delay in filing the appeal is not intentional is not intentional.

On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee, for donation of delay and stated that delay should not be condoned on assessee, for donation of delay and stated that delay should not be condoned on assessee, for donation of delay and stated that delay should not be condoned on such flimsy reasons.

I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. I note that the failure 5. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. I note that 5. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. I note that of assessee was on account of mistake of accountant of assessee under wrong of assessee was on account of mistake of accountant of assessee under wrong of assessee was on account of mistake of accountant of assessee under wrong belief. Hence, mistake on the part of accountant cannot put assessee to jeopardy belief. Hence, mistake on the part of accountant cannot put assessee to jeopardy belief. Hence, mistake on the part of accountant cannot put assessee to jeopardy and assessee cannot be penalize and assessee cannot be penalized for same. This can be considered as for same. This can be considered as reasonable cause to condone to condone the delay. I note that the reasons given in the the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would affidavit for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would affidavit for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal. constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal. constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal. Having heard both the parties and after having gone Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the affidavit as through the affidavit as well the delay condonation, application, I am of the considered opinion that in well the delay condonation, application, I am of the considered opinion that in well the delay condonation, application, I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. I, accordingly, the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. I, accordingly, the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. I, accordingly, condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. and admit the appeal for hearing.

On merit, brief facts of the issue in dispute are stated as under. facts of the issue in dispute are stated as under. During the assessment proceedings, as per data made available with the s per data made available with the Department epartment, it was noticed by the assessing officer by the assessing officer that assessee has made investment in the that assessee has made investment in the immovable property with one other co immovable property with one other co-owner. The value of investment in the r. The value of investment in the property property is is Rs. 1,30,41,610/ Rs. 1,30,41,610/-, which which include stamp include stamp duty duty of of Rs. Rs. 6,05,000/,Registration fees of Rs. 1,23,140/ 6,05,000/,Registration fees of Rs. 1,23,140/-, copying charges of Rs. 330/ , copying charges of Rs. 330/-, in addition to amount paid to seller party of Rs. 1,23,13,140/ addition to amount paid to seller party of Rs. 1,23,13,140/- and share of the and share of the assessee in the property comes to Rs. 65,20,805/ ssessee in the property comes to Rs. 65,20,805/-( 50% of Rs. 1,30,41,610/ ( 50% of Rs. 1,30,41,610/-). In absence of any reply from the assessee, amount invested absence of any reply from the assessee, amount invested, Rs. 65,20,805/ Rs. 65,20,805/-, in purchase of this property was was treated by the assessing officer, as unexplained as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the I.T T. Act and treated as income of the assessee for the Act and treated as income of the assessee for the A.Y. 2013-14.

Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the 7. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the 7. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A), who has confirmed the addition the addition made by the assessing officer made by the assessing officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee, and dismissed the appeal of the assessee, therefore, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. therefore, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that the source Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that of investment for purchasing of investment for purchasing the property was sale consideration received was sale consideration received from Reliance Infrastructure Limited Reliance Infrastructure Limited at Rs. 67,95,024/-, on 16.03.2012 on 16.03.2012, by compulsory acquisition of land compulsory acquisition of land. The assessee submitted before the Bench, the The assessee submitted before the Bench, the bank statement and other documents to prove this fact that assessee had and other documents to prove this fact that assessee had and other documents to prove this fact that assessee had received the amount by way of compulsory acquisition of land by Reliance received the amount by way of compulsory acquisition of land by Reliance received the amount by way of compulsory acquisition of land by Reliance infrastructure Limited. The amount so received, from reliance infrastructure The amount so received, from reliance infrastructure The amount so received, from reliance infrastructure Limited was invested by the assessee to purchase Limited was invested by the assessee to purchase such property, therefore such property, therefore assessee has explained the source to purchase another property. Hence addition assessee has explained the source to purchase another property. Hence addition assessee has explained the source to purchase another property. Hence addition should not be made in the hands of the assessee. should not be made in the hands of the assessee.

Learned Counsel further submitted that in the case of assessee`s, brother, 9. Learned Counsel further submitted that in the case of assessee`s, brother, 9. Learned Counsel further submitted that in the case of assessee`s, brother, who has also received the amount from Reliance Infrastructure Limited, on the amount from Reliance Infrastructure Limited, on the amount from Reliance Infrastructure Limited, on account of compulsory acquisition of land and considering this fact, the learned account of compulsory acquisition of land and considering this fact, the learned account of compulsory acquisition of land and considering this fact, the learned CIT(A) in the assessee`s brother case, the addition was deleted. Therefore, the CIT(A) in the assessee`s brother case, the addition was deleted. Therefore, the CIT(A) in the assessee`s brother case, the addition was deleted. Therefore, the learned Counsel stated that the issue under learned Counsel stated that the issue under consideration is squarely covered by consideration is squarely covered by the order of the learned CIT(A), in the assessee`s brother`s case, where the the order of the learned CIT(A), in the assessee`s brother`s case, where the the order of the learned CIT(A), in the assessee`s brother`s case, where the addition was deleted by the learned CIT(A), on the same facts and addition was deleted by the learned CIT(A), on the same facts and addition was deleted by the learned CIT(A), on the same facts and circumstances, as that of assessee, under consideration. circumstances, as that of assessee, under consideration. Therefore, in the Therefore, in the hands of the assessee, the addition so made by the assessing officer, may also be of the assessee, the addition so made by the assessing officer, may also be of the assessee, the addition so made by the assessing officer, may also be deleted.

I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of t laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the he case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. I find merit in the arguments I find merit in the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the assessee to the effect that the issue advanced by the learned Counsel for the assessee to the effect that the issue advanced by the learned Counsel for the assessee to the effect that the issue under consideration is squarely covered by the case of asses under consideration is squarely covered by the case of assessee`s brother, see`s brother, where, based on the same facts and circumstances, the learned CIT(A) has where, based on the same facts and circumstances, the learned CIT(A) has where, based on the same facts and circumstances, the learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition. That is, That is, in assessee`s, brother case, who was holding 50% who was holding 50% share, the learned CIT(A)had )had deleted the addition, therefore, appeal of the therefore, appeal of the assessee should be allowed ould be allowed based on the same facts and circumstances. based on the same facts and circumstances. The findings of the learned CIT CIT(A) in the case of assessee`s brother, namely, Shri , namely, Shri Bharatbhai Lilabhai Goraniya Bharatbhai Lilabhai Goraniya, for Assessment Year, 2013-14, having, , having, PAN No. BBWPG1849K,Date of Order Date of Order ,24/12/2024, are as follows:

I have gone through the above findings of the learned I have gone through the above findings of the learned CIT( A) and noticed CIT( A) and noticed that learned CIT(A) had deleted the addition in the hands of assessee`s brother, that learned CIT(A) had deleted the addition in the hands of assessee`s brother, that learned CIT(A) had deleted the addition in the hands of assessee`s brother, taking into account the money received on account of compulsory acquisition of taking into account the money received on account of compulsory acquisition of taking into account the money received on account of compulsory acquisition of land, by the Reliance Infrastructure Limited.O land, by the Reliance Infrastructure Limited.On same facts and circumstances n same facts and circumstances, of the case, I am of the view that I am of the view that no any different treatment should be given to any different treatment should be given to the assessee under consideration. the assessee under consideration. That is, the assessee under consideration he assessee under consideration, should be treated, on the same footing on the same footing, as the assessee`s, brother, where revenue , where revenue authorities have deleted the addition ve deleted the addition. The assessee, under consideration is The assessee, under consideration is holder of 50% land and assessee`s brother is also holder of 50% land, and the holder of 50% land and assessee`s brother is also holder of 50% land, and the holder of 50% land and assessee`s brother is also holder of 50% land, and the said land was acquired by the Reliance Infrastructure Limited, by way of said land was acquired by the Reliance Infrastructure Limited, by way of said land was acquired by the Reliance Infrastructure Limited, by way of compulsory acquisition. Both these brothers Both these brothers have invested the money so have invested the money so received by them from Reliance Infrastructure Limited, to purchase another received by them from Reliance Infrastructure Limited, to purchase another received by them from Reliance Infrastructure Limited, to purchase another property, and addition made in the hands of assessee`s brother was deleted by property, and addition made in the hands of assessee`s brother was deleted by property, and addition made in the hands of assessee`s brother was deleted by

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed. 13. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed.