आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण,‘ए’न्यायपीठ,चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्रीएसएसधिश्वनेत्ररधि, न्याधयकसदस्यएिंश्रीएस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखासदस्यके समक्ष BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.:2873/Chny/2024 धनिाारणिर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Natesan Ekambaram, DCIT, 1/115, Bajanai Kovil vs. Central Circle -1(2), Street, Chennai.

Perumbakkam, Medavakkam Post, Chennai 601 302 –

[PAN:ACKPE-6757-C]

(अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant by : Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, CA.

प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent by : Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.CIT.

सुनिाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 19.08.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025

O R D E R

฀฀฀฀ /

PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated

25.09.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai [hereinafter referred to as the “ld.CIT(A)”], which arises out of the assessment order dated 21.03.2023 passed u/s.147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as the “Act”] by the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai [hereinafter referred to as the “AO”], for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1.That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 18, Chennai is not justified in not appreciating that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law on account of various factors (Additional Ground).

2.That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in holding that the land transferred by the appellant is an urban agricultural land liable for taxation as per section

2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Without prejudice to the above, the following grounds of appeal are raised:

3.That the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer erred in assessing the sale consideration of Rs.2,50,00,000/- in the hands of the appellant.

4.That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not appreciating that the appellant is not the sole owner of the land, hence the entire sale consideration cannot be brought to tax in the hands of the appellant alone.

5.That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in denying the claim of exemption u/s.54/54F made by the appellant.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, did not furnish his return of income for the impugned assessment year. The assessee is the owner of 121 cents of vacant land situated at Survey No.182, Siruseri Village, Thiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.During the course of survey proceedings conducted at the premises of M/s.Jacaranda Properties Private Limited, it came to light that the assessee had sold 30.35 cents of the aforesaid land, out of his total holding of 121 cents, to M/s.Jacaranda Properties Private Limited on 14.10.2013 for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,00,44,000/-. The said transaction was effected through his power agent, Shri V.R. Anbuvelrajan.

4. Based on the aforesaid information, the case of the assessee was reopened, and the assessment was initially completed u/s.144 r.w.s147 of the Act on 26.03.2022, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,47,64,718/-.

5. The aforesaid assessment stood rendered redundant in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agrawal. Pursuant thereto, the AO reopened the case of the assessee to re-do the assessment in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the amended regime introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, with effect from 01.04.2021. In compliance therewith, the AO passed an order u/s.148A(d) of the Act and, thereafter, issued a notice u/s.148 of the Act on 30.07.2022. In response, the assessee filed his return of income on 15.11.2022 admitting a total income of Rs.2,45,610/-.

6. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Shri V.R.Anbuvelrajan