IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.Nos.601, 602 & 603/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2017-2018 Smt. Rama Devi, Sri B. Pramod And Sri BV Santosh, Legal The DCIT(A), Circle-14(1), Heirs of (Late) Sri Laxman vs.

Hyderabad.

Rao Banapuram.

Hyderabad.

PAN AGHPB1590M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Assessee : CA KA Sai Prasad For Revenue : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 26.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G, A.M. :

The above appeals have been filed by the Legal Heirs of (Late) Laxman Rao Banapuram viz., Smt. Rama Devi, Sri B. Pramod And Sri BV Santosh against the order all dated 19.07.2022 of the learned CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad, relating to the assessment years 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2017-2018. The assessee has more or less raised common grounds in the above appeals for the above assessment years and, therefore, for the sake of convenience and brevity, the grounds of appeal for the assessment year 2014

2015 in ITA 601/Hyd./2022 are reproduced as under : 1. The order of the Id First Appellate Authority is not correct either in law or on facts and in both.

2. The learned First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the claim that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Assessing Officer is not justified in invoking the provisions of Sec.142(2A) and hence the assessment is barred by limitations and not valid.

a) The ld. First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.2,80,79,359/- as undisclosed long term Capital gain.

b) The ld. First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the land in question is agricultural land and hence the gain on transfer cannot be taxed as long term capital gain.

c) The ld. First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the land in fact was transferred on 30.12.2012 evidence by seized agreement of sale and hence the gain if any is liable to be brought to tax in A.Y.2013-14 and not in the Asst. Year under appeal, 2014-15.

3. d) The ld. First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the actual consideration receive by the appellate and the other Co-owner is Rs.1,66,15,000/- in all and hence the Assessing Officer is not justified in adopting Rs.6,14,50,000/-

as total sale consideration.

e) The ld. First Appellate Authority is not justified in not treating the sale consideration at Rs.1,66,15,000/- as computed by the Special Auditors.

f) The ld. First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the addition, made on assumptions and presumptions.

g) The ld. First Appellate Authority is not justified in not granting deduction u/s 54F as claimed by the assessee.

4. The assessee craves leave to add and or alter any of the above grounds.”

2. At the very outset, there is a delay of 47 days in filing the instant appeals before the Tribunal and the assessee has filed petitions for condonation of the delay of 47 days in filing the appeals. We are satisfied with the reasons explained by the assessee and accordingly, we condone the delay of 47 days in filing the instant appeals before the Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication.

3. The brief acts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and has filed his original return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 11.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs.1,648/- and for the assessment year 2015-16 filed his return of income on 21.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.1,01,767/-. A search and seizure operation u/sec.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] was carried-out at the residential premises of the assessee on 06.12.2016. Consequent to search, notice u/sec.153A of the Act was issued for assessment years 2011-2012 to 2016-2017 on 22.11.2017 and 11.01.2018. In response to the above notices, Smt. B. Ramadevi, wife of the assessee filed letter dated 22.02.2018 stating that the assessee Sri Banapur