Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order confirming the addition of Rs. 65,20,805/- for unexplained investment. The appeal was barred by limitation by 429 days due to a consultant's error, which the Tribunal condoned. The investment in question was made in an immovable property.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the source of investment was sale consideration received from Reliance Infrastructure Limited due to compulsory land acquisition. The Tribunal found that a similar addition made in the case of the assessee's brother, on the same facts, was deleted by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal held that the assessee should be treated similarly.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs. 65,20,805/- on account of unexplained investment in a property is justified, considering the source of funds was from compulsory land acquisition compensation and a similar addition in the brother's case was deleted.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 250, 69, 271(1)(c), 249(4), 148, 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINIBEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINIBEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI
Date of Hearing : 01/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement Date of Pronouncement : 22/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A AM: Captioned appeal filed by Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14, is directed against , is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) byNational Faceless Appeal National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal ax (Appeals), dated 30/01/2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by , which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer the Assessing Officer dated 30/10/2018, u/s 144 r.w.s147 r.w.s147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
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.
2. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
3. That, the findings of Ld. CIT(A) are not justified That, the findings of Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and bad-in-law.
That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the order passed u/s 144 of the I.T.Act, That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the order passed u/s 144 of the I.T.Act, That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the order passed u/s 144 of the I.T.Act, 1961 without giving proper opportunity of being heard. 1961 without giving proper opportunity of being heard. 5. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed the appeal by applying the provision of That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed the appeal by applying the provision of That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed the appeal by applying the provision of section 249(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961. section 249(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 6. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirm That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7. That, the Ld. CIT(A) ha That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the levy of interest charged u/s s wrongly confirmed the levy of interest charged u/s 234A/234B/234C/234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 234A/234B/234C/234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 8. That, the appellant craves to add, amend, alter That, the appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds any of the above grounds of appeal.
3. 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.
4. 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.
10.On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity.
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:
“5. Going through the facts of the present case, grounds of appeal & assessment Going through the facts of the present case, grounds of appeal & assessment Going through the facts of the present case, grounds of appeal & assessment order it is found that the appellant had made investment in purchase of agriculture order it is found that the appellant had made investment in purchase of agriculture order it is found that the appellant had made investment in purchase of agriculture land at Visavada Village via purchase agreement on 27th April, 2012 of Rs. land at Visavada Village via purchase agreement on 27th April, 2012 of R land at Visavada Village via purchase agreement on 27th April, 2012 of R 1,30,41,610/- consisting of Rs. 1,23,13,140/ consisting of Rs. 1,23,13,140/- purchase consideration plus Rs. purchase consideration plus Rs. 6,05,000/- stamp duty plus Rs. 1,23,140/ stamp duty plus Rs. 1,23,140/- registration fees plus Rs.330/ registration fees plus Rs.330/- copying charges. The said investment was made with the joint holder Mr. Arjanbhai Lilabhai charges. The said investment was made with the joint holder Mr. Arjanbhai Lilabhai charges. The said investment was made with the joint holder Mr. Arjanbhai Lilabhai Goraniya. Therefore, the share of appellant is 50% which comes to Rs.65,20,810/ Therefore, the share of appellant is 50% which comes to Rs.65,20,810/-In Therefore, the share of appellant is 50% which comes to Rs.65,20,810/ the absence of non-compliance of the appellant, AO made addition of Rs. 65,20,805/ compliance of the appellant, AO made addition of Rs. 65,20,805/-, compliance of the appellant, AO made addition of Rs. 65,20,805/ on account of unexplained investment for the purchase of agricultural land u/s 69 of on account of unexplained investment for the purchase of agricultural land u/s 69 of on account of unexplained investment for the purchase of agricultural land u/s 69 of the Act. However, on perusal of written reply along with documents, it is found that the ever, on perusal of written reply along with documents, it is found that the ever, on perusal of written reply along with documents, it is found that the investment made in purchased of agriculture land at Visavada Village Taluka investment made in purchased of agriculture land at Visavada Village Taluka investment made in purchased of agriculture land at Visavada Village Taluka Porbandar, Dist. Jamnagar of Rs. 65,20,810/ Porbandar, Dist. Jamnagar of Rs. 65,20,810/- is out of amount received from is out of amount received from Reliance Industries Limited Reliance Industries Limited, Jamnagar for sale of agriculture land at Kanalus Village , Jamnagar for sale of agriculture land at Kanalus Village approx. 4.58 acre under compulsory acquisition by Gujarat Government for Reliance approx. 4.58 acre under compulsory acquisition by Gujarat Government for Reliance approx. 4.58 acre under compulsory acquisition by Gujarat Government for Reliance
Industries, Jamnagar, which was received from Reliance Industries, Jamnagar on Industries, Jamnagar, which was received from Reliance Industries, Jamnagar on Industries, Jamnagar, which was received from Reliance Industries, Jamnagar on 16th March, 2012 before few days fro 16th March, 2012 before few days from the investment made in new agriculture land. m the investment made in new agriculture land. Further on perusal of rejoinder application of the appellant addressed to CIT(A), Further on perusal of rejoinder application of the appellant addressed to CIT(A), Further on perusal of rejoinder application of the appellant addressed to CIT(A), Jamnagar dated 20.02.2020 received on 24.02.2020, it is found that vide letter No. Jamnagar dated 20.02.2020 received on 24.02.2020, it is found that vide letter No. Jamnagar dated 20.02.2020 received on 24.02.2020, it is found that vide letter No. SRT/TTO/Ward-2(4), Porbandar/ Remand 2(4), Porbandar/ Remand Report/2019-20/823 dated 17.01.2020, AO 20/823 dated 17.01.2020, AO has submitted remand report to CIT(A), Jamnagar in compliance of letter no. CIT(A)/ has submitted remand report to CIT(A), Jamnagar in compliance of letter no. CIT(A)/ has submitted remand report to CIT(A), Jamnagar in compliance of letter no. CIT(A)/ Jam/Remand Report/ALG/2019 Jam/Remand Report/ALG/2019-20/1004 dated 06.11.2019 received in this office on 20/1004 dated 06.11.2019 received in this office on 11.11.2019. During the proceeding, vide DIN No. LTBA/ 11.11.2019. During the proceeding, vide DIN No. LTBA/NAFAC/F/2024 NAFAC/F/2024- 25/1071288209(1) dated 17.12.2024, copy of previous remand report has been called 25/1071288209(1) dated 17.12.2024, copy of previous remand report has been called 25/1071288209(1) dated 17.12.2024, copy of previous remand report has been called for & same has been furnished by the AO on 20.12.2024, AO has stated as here for & same has been furnished by the AO on 20.12.2024, AO has stated as here for & same has been furnished by the AO on 20.12.2024, AO has stated as here under: 6. Looking to the above facts the contention of the assessee that the source of 6. Looking to the above facts the contention of the assessee that the source 6. Looking to the above facts the contention of the assessee that the source investment for purchasing an agricultural land was sale consideration received from investment for purchasing an agricultural land was sale consideration received from investment for purchasing an agricultural land was sale consideration received from Reliance Infrastructure Limited was Rs. 67,95,024/ Reliance Infrastructure Limited was Rs. 67,95,024/-on 16.03.2012 (by compulsory on 16.03.2012 (by compulsory acquisition of land) as per bank statement submitted by the assessee is found to be acquisition of land) as per bank statement submitted by the assessee is found to be acquisition of land) as per bank statement submitted by the assessee is found to be correct and justifiable. In view of the aforesaid remand report, facts and circumstances of the present case, I In view of the aforesaid remand report, facts and circumstances of the present case, I In view of the aforesaid remand report, facts and circumstances of the present case, I have thoughtfully perused the relevant documents available on record, I find have thoughtfully perused the relevant documents available on record, I find have thoughtfully perused the relevant documents available on record, I find substance in explanation of appellant and addition of Rs. 65,20,805/ substance in explanation of appellant and addition of Rs. 65,20,805/- made u/s. 69 of made u/s. 69 of the Act is unsustainable and is hereby ordered to be deleted. The appellant's relevant the Act is unsustainable and is hereby ordered to be deleted. The appellant's relevant the Act is unsustainable and is hereby ordered to be deleted. The appellant's relevant grounds of appeal are allowed. grounds of appeal are allowed. Resultantly, the appeal of the appellant is hereby Resultantly, the appeal of the appellant is hereby allowed.
12. 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 the learned CIT(A), therefore, based on the same facts and circumstances, the the learned CIT(A), therefore, based on the same facts and circumstances, t the learned CIT(A), therefore, based on the same facts and circumstances, t assessee under consideration, should not be treated differently, that is, same assessee under consideration, should not be treated differently, that is, same assessee under consideration, should not be treated differently, that is, same treatment should be given to the assessee, under consideration and hence I treatment should be given to the assessee, under consideration and hence I treatment should be given to the assessee, under consideration and hence I delete the addition so made in the hands of the assessee, and allow the appeal delete the addition so made in the hands of the assessee, and allow the appeal delete the addition so made in the hands of the assessee, and allow the appeal of the assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed. 13. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on Order pronounced in the open court on 22 / 09/ 2025.