##PAGE1##

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”बी” ्቗ायपीठ पुणेमें।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE

BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

AND

SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

आयकर अपऩल स. ं / ITA No.1720/PUN/2025

निर्धारण वष ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14

The Income Tax Officer, V Sachin Govind Apte,

Ward-3(1), Pune. s. 759-63, Prabhat Road,

Erandwana, Pune – 411004.

PAN: AAVPA9458P

Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Assessee by Ms.Vaishnavi Badwe

Revenue by Shri Amit Bobde - CIT(DR)

Date of hearing 16/12/2025

Date of pronouncement 03/02/2026

आदेश/ ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of

ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2013-14 dated

15.05.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under

section 143(3) of the Act, dated 30.03.2016. The Revenue has

raised the following grounds of appeal :

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law

the Hon'ble CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition of

Rs.78,72,000/- made under head STCG and disallowance of deduction

u/s 54F of the IT. Act, 1961?

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law

the Hon‟ble CTI (A) was justified in deleting the addition of

Rs.1,20,00,000/- made on account of deemed dividend u/s Section

2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961?

ITA No.1720/PUN/2025 [D]

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in

law, the Hon‟ble CIT(A) erred in not complying with the provisions of

Rule 46A(3) of IT Rules while admitting fresh evidence establishing the

alleged dissolution of firm on 31.03.2007.

4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in

law, the Hon‟ble CIT (A) erred in not complying with the provisions of

Rule 46A(3) of IT Rules while admitting fresh evidence relied upon

while coming to a conclusion that the advances of Rs.1,20,00,000/-

were given in the course of regular business as trade advances.

5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any

ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”

Findings & Analysis :

2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In

this case Assessee Sachin Govind Apte filed Return of Income

Electronically for A.Y.2013-14 on 18/02/2014 declaring Total

Income at 28,53,900/-.The Assessee is an Individual qualified Civil

Engineer. He is proprietor of M/s.Empire Ventures. He is also

Director in Empire Shelters Pvt. Ltd. The assessee’s case was

selected for scrutiny. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Pune,

Assessing Officer(AO) issued various notice, the Authorized

representative of the assessee appeared and filed details during

scrutiny proceedings. During the year Assessee had sold plot of

land bearing Survey No.44, Hissa No.1/2, Baner, Pune on

15/03/2013 for a consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. The Assessee

had shown Long Term capital gain and claimed deduction u/s.54F of

2

ITA No.1720/PUN/2025 [D]

the Act. However, the AO denied the claim of 54F and held that it

was short term capital gain. AO alleged that the Assessee became

owner of the said plot only on 04/03/2013. AO also made addition

u/s.2(22)(e) of Rs.1,20,00,000/- alleging that m/s Empire Shelters

Pvt. Ltd has given advance /loan to Assessee.

2.1 Aggrieved by the Assessment Order the Assessee filed Appeal

before Ld.CIT(A).The Ld.CIT(A) allowed appeal of the Assessee.

Aggrieved by the Order of the Ld.CIT(A), Revenue has filed appeal

before Tribunal.

3. We will discuss grounds of appeal here onwards.

Ground Number 1 & 3 :

3.1 These grounds pertain to Capital Gain. We have already

mentioned that the Assessee had sold plot having Survey No.44,

Hissa No.1/2, Baner, Pune on 15/03/2013. It is the case of the

Assessing officer that impugned plot was owned by Partnership

Firm called Empire ventures which had acquired it in 2006. It is the

case of the Assessing Officer that the Partnership firm Empire

Ventures dissolved on 04/03/2013 hence the AO held that impugned

plot of land became p