आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad (cid:302)ी (cid:874)वजय पाल राव, उपाÚ य¢ एव ं

(cid:302)ी मधुसूदन साव(cid:875)डया, लेखा सदè य के सम¢ ।

BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.228/Hyd/2025 (िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year:2013-14)

1. Shri Srinivas Pampati, Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Vs. Ward-2, Karimnagar.

PAN: ABOPP0603R आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.229/Hyd/2025 (िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year:2013-14)

2. Shri Hanmandlu Pampati, Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Vs. Ward-2, Karimnagar.

PAN: ABMPP0324R (Appellant) (Respondent)

िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा/Assessee by: Shri Lalith Kishore Sharma, Advocate.

राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा/Revenue by: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 17/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M. :

These two appeals are filed by Shri Srinivas Pampati & Shri Hanmandlu Pampati (“the assessees”), feeling aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 04.12.2024 & 05.12.2024 respectively for the A.Y. 2013-14. Since the grounds raised by the assessees are identical, they are heard together and one consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.

ITA No.229/Hyd/2025

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual who filed his return of income for assessment year 2013–14 on 27.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs.6,14,920/-. On the basis of information available with the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”), it was found that during the year under consideration the assessee had not offered capital gains on transfer of immovable property of Rs.1,71,13,333/-. Accordingly, the Ld. AO reopened the case of the assessee under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). After passing order under section 148A(d) of the Act, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 29.07.2022. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed return of income on 29.01.2023 declaring total income of Rs.5,16,650/-. During reassessment proceedings, on the basis of submissions of the assessee, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee along with three others had entered into a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (“JDA”) with M/s. Shriyam Infrastructure(“Developer”) on 02.03.2013. As per the said JDA, the assessee and the other three persons were joint owners of land measuring 6380 sq. yds. on which they agreed to permit the developer for construction of a multi-storeyed residential complex. The JDA provided that the total constructed area would be 1,28,350 sq. ft., out of which the landowners jointly would receive 32% and the developer 68%. The Stamp Duty Authority determined the total value of the JDA at Rs.10,26,80,000/-. Accordingly, on the basis of the valuation done by Stamp Duty Authority, the Ld. AO computed the assessee’s share therein at Rs.1,71,13,333/-. The Ld. AO called for details regarding cost of acquisition as well as claim of exemption under section 54F of the Act from the assessee. However, no details were furnished by the assessee. Consequently, the Ld. AO treated the entire amount of Rs.1,71,13,333/- as long-term capital gain in the hands of the assessee and completed assessment under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act on 19.05.2023 at a total income of Rs.1,76,29,983/-.

4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee remained unresponsive to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, upheld the order of the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“