IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.39/RJT/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष (cid:91) / Assessment Years: (2014-15)

Kantaben Ramniklal Nagda Vs. ITO, Wd- 2(6), Jamnagar Flat No. 603, K D Tower, Oswal Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Colony, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar-361004 Jamnagar - 361001 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AGTPN7366D (Assessee) (Respondent)

आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos. 46/RJT/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष (cid:91) / Assessment Years: (2014-15)

JiteshbhaiRamniklalNagada Vs. ITO, Wd- 2(6), Jamnagar Flat No. 603, K D Tower, Oswal Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Colony, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar-361004 Jamnagar - 361001 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AGCPN9158N (Assessee) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 23/06/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjul Lal Saini, AM:

Captioned two appeals filed by the different assessees, pertaining to same Assessment Years 2014-15, are directed against the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals),which in turn, arise out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer, under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’].

2. Since common and identical issues are involved, therefore, these two appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.

3.The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 39/Rjt/2025, for Assessment Year 2014-15, are as follows:

1. “Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law by confirming addition made by Ld. A.O.

of Rs. 8,34,694/-u/s. 56(vii)(b)(ii) without considering the fact that the land purchased is Rural Agricultural Land which is not capital asset as per provisions of section 2(14). Hence, Section 56(vii)(b)(vii) is not applicable.

2. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law by confirming addition made by Ld. A.O.

of Rs. 8,34,694/- u/s. 56(vii)(b)(ii) on account of alleged difference between actual purchase price and Jantri Value without establishing that purchase is made by appellant by payment of extra money neither by referring the same to valuation officer for evaluation of the value.

3. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law by confirming addition made for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 16,80,923/- by Ld. AO by denying the cost of improvement for want of necessary supporting documents.

4. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law by confirming addition u/s 50C for substituting Jantri value of assets which is higher than actual sale price without considering the fact that the land is not a capital asset. Hence, provisions of section 50C is not applicable.

5. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law as well as fact by confirming by making addition of Rs.2,33,385/- u/s 68 for agricultural income disclosed by appellant for want of supporting documents.

6. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law as well as fact by confirming addition of Rs. 24,48,100/- for opening balance of cash for want of source and treating the same as undisclosed sources.”

4. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 46/Rjt/2025, for Assessment Year 2014-15, are as follows:

“1. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law by confirming addition made by Ld A.O. of Rs. 8,34,694/- u/s 56(vii)(b)(ii) without considering the fact that the land purchased is Rural Agricultural Land which is not capital asset as per provisions of section 2(14). Hence, Section 56(vii)(b)(vii) is not applicable.

2. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law by confirming addition made by Ld A.O. of Rs. 8,34,694/- u/s. 56(vii)(b)(i) on account of alleged difference between actual purchase price and Jantri Value without establishing that purchase is made by appellant by payment of extra money neither by referring the same to