आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ (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)ी र(cid:521)ेश नंदन सहाय, लेखा सद(cid:735) के सम(cid:407)

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

Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1961/Chny/2025 िनधा(cid:330)रण वष(cid:330)/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Tiruchangodu Sengodagounder Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Ramasamy Khannaiyann, Income Tax, 67, Avarampalayam Road, K.R. Puram, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore 641 006. Coimbatore.

[PAN:AFZPK7832C]

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

अपीलाथ(cid:334) की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S. Dharshan Bothra, Advocate (cid:366)(cid:529)थ(cid:334) की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.02.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 20, Chennai, for the assessment year 2013-14.

2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 72 days. The assessee 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 assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.

3. The assessee raised 2 grounds challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) having concluded that the gains from sale of land is to be taxed under the head capital gains, ought to have held the same income, which was subsequently reclassified as business income under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] is also arising out of capital gains in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. At the outset, we note that there was a search operation under section 132 of the Act on 06.03.2019 in the group case of M/s. Hindusthan Educational and Charitable Trust, wherein, the assessee is Chairman/Managing Trustee. We note that the assessee had offered long term capital gains in the original return of income, which was reclassified as business income by the Assessing Officer in the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 31.12.2018. We further note that upon initiating proceedings under section 153A of the Act, consequent upon search, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 153A of the Act dated 10.08.2021 without making addition, but, however, the income under capital gains, which was reclassified as business income vide his order dated 31.12.2018 effectively stands, against which, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Since, the appeal filed against the order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act has been adjudicated vide his order dated 26.02.2025, the ld. CIT(A) treated the appeal filed against the order passed under section 153A of the Act as infructuous and dismissed.

5. The ld. AR Shri S. Dharshan Bothra, Advocate submits that the ld. CIT(A), vide his order dated 26.02.2025 for AY 2013-14, having concluded that the gains from sale of land is to be taxed under the head capital gains and not under the head profits and gains from business or profession against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 31.12.2018, erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee as infructuous against the reclassification of income of the assessee as business income, though no addition was made in the assessment order passed under section 153A of the Act and prayed that the ld. CIT(A) should have retained same stand as taken against scrutiny assessment.

6. The ld. DR Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. CIT supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).

7. We have heard both the part