PRAVINBHAI KESHAVBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(8)`, SURAT

�नधा�रतीक�ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Bharat Jhaveri, Advocate राज�वक�ओरसे /Revenue by ShriSBG Mahapatra, Sr- DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 14.06.2022 उ�घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of 21.07.2022 pronouncement Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-2 Surat [for short to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] dated 10.02.2020 for assessment year (AY) 2015- 16, which in turn arises out assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide order dated (A.Y 15-16) Pravinbhai K Patel 29.11.2017. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on subject the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2 Surat erred in allowing appeal in part only without considering the facts of the case.”

2. At the outset, appearing the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee submits that in the sole ground of appeal the assessee has challenged two additions of Rs. 5.00 lakhs under section 69 and Rs. 1.62 lakh under section 69C sustained by ld CIT(A). The ld AR for the assessee submits that at this stage he is not pressing part fist of the addition of Rs. 5.00 lakhs under section 69 and the same may be dismissed as not pressed.

3. So far as other (second) part of the addition under section 69C is concerned, the ld AR for the assessee submits that the assessee and his co-owners have incurred Rs.25,34,090/- on account of conversions charges for converting agriculture land to non-agriculture land and the assessee has incurred Rs.1.00 lakhs and remaining was incurred by three other co- owners on behalf of assessee and other sharers. Rs.

(A.Y 15-16) Pravinbhai K Patel 16,92,669/- was incurred by Natwarbhai Patel, Rs. 4,75,000/- by Champakbhai Patel and Rs. 2,76,669/- by Parwatiben Patel, which has been accepted by Tribunal in one of the co- owners case case in dated 02,06.2022. Part of the similar expenses incurred by the other co-owner for conversation in assessee’s case for converting the agriculture land to non-agriculture. The facts and circumstances of this case are identical. The ld AR for the assessee filed the copy of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 110/Srt/2020 on record. The assessee has not incurred any expense as assessee is not regular income. The expense was incurred by other co-owners which have been accepted by the Tribunal in assessee’s co- owners case. More over in two co-owners case namely Vipul Champakbhai Patel (PAN: CNYPP 0204N) and Kantabenpatel (PAN:BYFPP 7337 D) no such additions were made.

and decision of assessee’s co-owners involved in ITA No.110/SRT/2020 (supra). The Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that he is supported the order of lower authorities. 3 (A.Y 15-16) Pravinbhai K Patel

5. We have heard the rival submission of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Considering the submissions of the ld AR for the assessee that at this stage he is not pressing the addition of Rs. 5.00 lakh under section 69 of the Act, the addition under section 69 of Rs. 5.00 lakh sustained by ld CIT(A) is upheld.

6. So far as other addition of Rs. 1.62 lakh is concerned, we find that his part of ground of appeal raised by the assessee is covered by the decision in assessee’s co-owners case in ITA No. 110/Srt/2020, wherein on similar set of facts similar addition was deleted by this combination. The relevant submissions of the party and contents of the decision is extracted below; “

4. We have heard the submissions of learned authorised representative (AR) of the assessee and the learned departmental representative (DR) for the revenue and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities. The ld AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has no regular income and the assessee is also not a regular income tax assessee. During the relevant financial year, the assessee along with her other co-owners sold agricultural land after converting the same into non-agricultural land. On sale of such land, the assessee earned long term capital gain. Since the assessee earned Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG), thus the assessee filed return of income in the impugned assessment year. As the assessee has (A.Y 15-16) Pravinbhai K Patel no source of income, the expenses on behalf of her has been spent by the family members and other co-owners in the following manner;  Natwarbhai Patel Rs. 16,92,669/- (PAN ACCPP 1100C),  Champakbhai K Patel Rs. 4,75,000/- (PAN:CNYPP 0205 P),  Parwatiben N Patel Rs.2,76,669/- (PAN:ADGPP 1884L),  Praveenbhai K Patel Rs.1,00,000/- (PAN:ADGPP 4549L). Total : Rs. 25,34,090/- 4. Similar expenses were made by or on behalf of other co-owners namely Vipul Champakbhai Patel (PAN:CNYPP 0204N) and Kantabenpatel (PAN:BYFPP 7337 D), but revenue has not made addition for similar expenses in their case despite the facts that assessment was completed under section 143(3) in their cases, copy of their assessment order is being filed. The ld. AR submits that he has placed on record of other co- owners of the land wherein the Department has accepted similar Long Term Capital Gain, without making addition of expenses in their hand as they have also not made expenses from their account, in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The ld. AR further submits that the assessee cannot be treated indifferently than the other co-owners as no similar additions were made in their assessment, though the assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that being co-owner the assessee is also entitled for similar treatment.