IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील स.ं / ITA No.375/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Balaji Developers, Vs. ITO, Ward-1, F-25, Garud Maidan Complex, Dhule Opp. Kamlabai High school, Sakri Road, Dhule-424001 Maharashtra PAN : AAKFB8360N Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Sanket M. Joshi Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 28.01.2025 Date of pronouncement : 24.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of appellant is directed against the order dated 16.10.2023 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’) which inturn is arising out of the Assessment Order dated 24.12.2018 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act.

2. At the outset, we find the appeal is barred by limitation by 60 days before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit given by the Authorised Representative explaining the reasonable cause which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. The contents of the said affidavit read as under :

“1. I hereby state that I had appeared as the Authorized Representative in the income tax assessment proceedings before Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Dhule in the case of M/s Balaji Developers, Dhule for Α.Υ.2016 17. I wish to state that the partners of the assessee firm are not well versed with the income tax provisions and procedures and hence, my e- mail id namely shivdongre@gmail.com was mentioned in the Form 35 filed on 11.01.2019. I would like to state that subsequently, I had left the assignment and the partners of the above mentioned firm had appointed a different CA for looking after the appeal work. I wish to state that the notices during the appellate proceedings, as well as the appellate order passed u/s 250 dated 16.10.2023 was received on my email address: shivdongre@gmail.com. I would also like to state that due to pre-occupied work schedule I was not able to check and verify my e-mail account on regular basis. Therefore, the email containing the appellate order u/s 250 was passed in case of M/s Balaji Developers for A.Y.2016-17 went unnoticed from my side and as a result I could not inform the assessee about the same. In view of the above facts, I would like to state that there was a delay of 60 days in filing the appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Pune.

Whatever is stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and

3. After going through the averments made in the affidavit, we are satisfied that there was reasonable cause for the assessee in not presenting the appeal before the Tribunal. We therefore condone the delay of 60 days in filing this appeal and proceed for adjudication of the appeal.

4. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,74,48,078made by the A.O by holding that the income arising on compulsory acquisition of land held as stock in trade by the appellant firm was taxable as business income under the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that the said addition was not justified on facts and in law.

2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that even though the impugned land was held by the appellant firm as stock in trade, the income arising on compulsory acquisition of the said land was exempt from taxation u/s 96 of the RFCTLAAR Act 2013 and hence, the addition made by the A.O is not justified on facts and in law.

3. The learned CIT(A)erred in not appreciating that the CBDT Circular No. 36 of 2016 in fact supported the case of the appellant and therefore, the reliance placed by the A.O. on the said Circular to make the above addition of Rs.2,74,48,078, was misplaced.

4. The appellant craves leave to add/alter/ amend any of the grounds of appeal.”

5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm and filed e-return for the