, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण विशाखापटणम पीठ म IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench श्री रिीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य एि ंश्री एस. बालकृष्णन, माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.177/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2023-24)

Gangunaidu Sabbavarapu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, MVP Colony, Ward – 2(5), Visakahaptnam. Visakhapatnam.

PAN : BSHPS5895P (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Smt. Hema Latha, K. C.A.

Assessee Represented by राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.A.R.

Department Represented by सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ : 24.06.2025 Date of Conclusion of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/ : 27.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R

प्रतत रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M.

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Guwahati, dated 30.03.2024 which in turn arises from the intimation issued by the Central Processing Centre, Bangalore u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) dated 28.02.2024. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us :

“1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short 'CIT(A)') u/s. 250 of IT Act dated 27-06-2024, dismissing the appeal, is not in accordance with the fact and provisions of law.

2. The Learned CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, when assessee placed a reasonable claim for exemption of capital gains, arising on account of compulsory acquisition, from Income-tax in view of section 96 of REFTLAR Act and Section 2(37) of Income-tax Act, 1961.

3. The Learned CIT(A) ought not to have appreciated that as per provisions of section 96 of REFTLAR Act and Section 2(37) of Income-tax Act, 1961, the land compulsorily acquired by the Government is exempt from income-tax and hence not taxable.

4. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated and followed the CBDT Circular No. 14 (XL-35) dated 11/04/1955, wherein it is clearly mentioned that ignorance of assessee cannot be taken advantage by officers and it is one of the duties of officers to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs and in this regard the Officers should take the initiative in guiding a taxpayer where proceedings or other particulars before them indicate that some refund or relief is due to him.

Without prejudice to the above grounds:

5. Kind attention is drawn to the Hon'ble Tribunal to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. V. CIT in [2006] 157 Taxman 1 (SC) wherein it was held that there is limitation is in the power of assessing authority to entertain a fresh claim otherwise than by way of filing a return and does not impinge on the power of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in view of this decision, assessee prays that Ld.AO may kindly be directed to exclude the impugned capital gains from the preview of Income-tax in view of provisions of law.

6. For these and such other grounds, that may be urged at the time of hearing of subject appeal, the appellant prays that the Ld.AO may kindly be directed to exclude the impugned capital gains from the preview of Income-tax in view of provisions of law, or provide such other relief as the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit.”

Thereafter, the assessee has modified ground nos.2 and 3 , which reads as under:

“2. The Learned CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, when assessee placed a reasonable claim for exemption of capital gains, arising on account of compulsory acquisition, from Income-tax in view of section 10(37) of Income-tax Act, 1961, in addition to the provisions of section 96 of REFTLAR Act, 2013.

3. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have apprecia