TAYYABABI ABDUL RAHEMAN SAYYAD,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4 LATUR, LATUR

ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These three appeals filed by Assessee are against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income tax Act, all dated 08.01.2024 for the A.Y.2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. All these three were heard together as issue involved was common. For the sake of convenience, we take for to 431/PUN/2024 Tayyababi Abdul Raheman Sayyad, Latur(03 appeals)[A] A.Y.2013-14 as “lead” case. The assessee for A.Y.2013-14 has raised the following grounds of appeal :

1. 2. The Ld. AO erred and Ld.CIT(A) erred in adding the amount of interest received of Rs.2,19,38,323/- u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and thereby erred in taxing Rs.1,09,69,162/- (after giving 50% deduction u/s 57(iv)).

3. The Ld AO erred in taxing the amount which was not effectively, received by me. 2.1 The amount of Rs.2,49,07,141/- is though received by me, 50% of that is required to be kept in as deposit/bank guarantee. Accordingly, 50% amount has neither effectively received nor accrued to me and thus, the same may please not be taxed.

4. The appellant craves it right to add to or alter the Grounds of Appeal at any time before or during the course of hearing of the case.” Submission of ld.AR :

2. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) of the assessee submitted that interest earned by assessee is exempt. Ld.AR also filed application for admission of additional evidence. Ld.AR submitted that these documents could not be produced before the AO &ld.CIT(A) as these were received by the assessee after the assessment order. Ld.AR vehemently submitted that these documents go to the root of the issue and therefore needs to be admitted as additional evidence. Ld.AR filed copy of English to 431/PUN/2024 Tayyababi Abdul Raheman Sayyad, Latur(03 appeals)[A] Translation of Order of District Collector, Latur dated 26.11.2012. Ld.AR also filed copy of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1081 of 2012 in assessee’s own case. Regarding the interest earned, ld.AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shivajirao Ghanwat (WP No.54020 of 2013). Ld.AR also relied on ITAT Pune’s decision in the case of Basweshwar Bidwe in Submission of ld.DR : 3. The Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A).

Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. For A.Y.2013-14 assessee has taken a ground that as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the District Collector of Latur has passed an order, according to which 50% of the amount was to be kept as guarantee. Therefore, ld.AR submitted that the said amount has not accrued to the assessee. Ld.AR relied on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan to 431/PUN/2024 Tayyababi Abdul Raheman Sayyad, Latur(03 appeals)[A] Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd., 161 ITR 524. It is observed that the documents filed as additional evidence goes to the root of the issue to be decided. However, these documents assessee could not file before the AO/CIT(A). We are convinced that there was sufficient cause for not filing these documents before the AO/ld.CIT(A). In these facts and circumstances of the case, we admit the additional evidence. Therefore, the order of the AO is set-aside to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication after considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer shall opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall provide all the necessary documents before the AO. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

& 430/PUN/2024 for A.Y.2011-12 & 2012-13 :