आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’A’ (cid:586)ायपीठ, चे(cid:580)ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI (cid:373)ी एस.एस. िव(cid:695)ने(cid:361) रिव, (cid:586)ाियक सद(cid:735) एवं (cid:373)ी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद(cid:735) के सम(cid:407)

Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member &

Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1382 & 1383/Chny/2025 िनधा(cid:330)रण वष(cid:330)/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Tiruchangodu Sengodagounder Income Tax, Ramasamy Khannaiyan, Central Circle 1, 67, Avarampalaym Road, K.R. Puram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore 641 006.

[PAN:AFZPK7832C]

(अपीलाथ(cid:334)/Appellant) ((cid:366)(cid:529)थ(cid:334)/Respondent)

अपीलाथ(cid:334) की ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT (cid:366)(cid:529)थ(cid:334) की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 15.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Both the appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against separate orders both dated 26.02.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Chennai for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2016-17.

2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 13 days. The ACIT Central Circle 1, Coimbatore filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the Appellant- Revenue are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.

3. Since issues raised in both the appeals are similar based on the same identical facts, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear the appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

4. First, we shall take appeal in ITA No. 1382/Chny/2025 AY 2013-14 for adjudication.

5. The Appellant-Revenue raised 2 grounds challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition by holding that the transfer of property to be viewed as a capital gain transaction in the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. We note that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer observed that as per the records of the assessee for the AYs. 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2016-17, the assessee has been purchasing and selling properties frequently and most of the sales are to M/s. Hindustan Educational and Charitable Trust at an exorbitant price much higher than guideline value. We note that after considering the submissions of the assessee and by referring to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of DCIT v. Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat 328 ITR 556, the Assessing Officer treated the sale transaction as adventure in the nature of trade and assessed the profit on sale of land to the tune of ₹.10,83,91,500/- as business income of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the sale transaction cannot be considered as an adventure in the nature of trade and directed the Assessing Officer to consider the surplus arising out of sale of land under the head capital gain by observing as under:

6.1.3. I have perused the submissions made by the appellant. At the outset, it is noticed that the appellant has sold the property after holding the same as investments for a period of more than 20 years. It is also crucial to note here that there is no finding in the assessment order that the land in question was developed or plotted by the appellant. It is also noticed from the details of the properties purchased and sold by the appellant that he has entered in land transactions sporadically over a long period. There are some sale and purchase transactions in some years whereas no such transactions are present in other years. Thus, it is quite evident that there is no chain or continuity in the transactions of immovable property. The AO had relied on the decision of the H