IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER&

SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 458/NAG/2025 (AY : 2014-15)

Vijaya Rama Shewalkar ITO, Ward – 5(2)

(L/R Through Ashutosh Vs BSNL, RTTC Building Ram Shewalkar) Nagpur – 440010

80, North Ambazari Road, Daga layout, Dharmapeth, Nagpur - 440010 [PAN: AEPPS8103M]

Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Manoj G Moryani, Adv&

Shri Bhavesh M Moryani, Adv Revenue by Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.

DR Date of hearing 27.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 20.04.2026 PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM:

1. The assessee has filed the aforesaid appeal challenging the impugned order dated 15/07/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“Ld. CIT(A)], for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1.The CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming the order passed U/s.

143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by assessing

officer, therefore order passed is illegal, invalid and bad in law;

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. NFAC failed to consider that agriculture income were duly shown and accepted in previous years by revenue, therefore the order passed is illegal, invalid and bad in law;

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC failed to consider actual use of the land at the time of Memorandum of Understanding dated 15/06/2012 was agriculture land, therefore order passed is illegal, invalid and bad in law;

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC failed to consider that land were duly shown as agriculture land on records and in sale deed as well as Memorandum of Understanding dated 15/06/2012, therefore the order passed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive;

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Center erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,67,25,874/- made by assessing officer and same is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive;

6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred in not considering that the land sold by the assessee is agriculture land and situated beyond 8 Kms from Municipal limit of Nagpur and is exempt from tax, therefore addition made is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive;

7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred in considering definition provided U/s. 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore the order passed U/s. 143 r.w.s. 147 is illegal, invalid and bad in law;

8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred in not considering that the aforesaid agriculture land was converted into non-agriculture as per the order of the Deputy Divisional Officer, Nagpur, in which clearly mentioned that conversion application made by the Purchaser Varon Auto Kast Ltd. and not assessee, therefore addition made is illegal, invalid and bad in law;

9. The assessee is denied the liability of interest charge U/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax act, the same may kindly be deleted

10. The appellant craves leave to amend, add or take a new ground or grounds at the time of hearing;”

2. We have heard the submissions of ld Counsel for assessee and the ld Sr DR for the revenue and have seen the orders of lower authorities carefully. both the parties, perused the material placed on record. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is squarely covered in favour of the assessee in co-owners’ case in Manisha Ashutosh Shewalkar Vs Income Tax Officer, ITA No. 67/Nag/2025, copy of which is filed on record. The ld Counsel for the assessee argued that assessee with his co-owners have sold agriculture land and similar additions were made against the co- owners and on appeal before Tribunal similar additions in case of co-owners have been deleted.

3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the