" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”ए” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Miscellaneous Application No.51/PUN/2024 (arising out of ITA No.1272/PUN/2023) िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Nilesh Bhagwan Londhe, Shop No.1, Harpale Building, Gadital, Hadapsar, Pune-411028. Maharashtra. V s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2), Pune. PAN: ABYPL2115L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Kishor Phadkhe – AR Revenue by Shri Prashant B. Gandhale – JCIT(DR) Date of hearing 11/04/2025 Date of pronouncement 10/07/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Assessee for recalling the Tribunal Order in ITA No.1272/PUN/2023 dated 25.01.2024, which was heard on 24.01.2024. 2. In this case, Assessee has filed a Miscellaneous Application wherein, para 16 & 17 Assessee has submitted as under : MA No.51/PUN/2024 [A] 2 “16. Observations of the Honorable ITAT bench towards non-receipt of earmarked potion of land in absence of any full-fledged partition of the said land was never an issue of dispute, since, the entire area of 189 R of Gat No. 115 was sold, and that too, by all the seven co-owners. Considering the purchase and sale of the entire area of 189 R of the said Gat No. 115, issue of earmarking after a full-fledged partition does not arise. Observations in Para-6 of the order of Honorable ITAT are, thus, leading to a prima-facie error. 17. Further, vide last few lines of Para No.6 of the order of Honorable ITAT, failure of Appellant to corroborate the allowability of expenses vis-à-vis documentary evidences, and based on the analogy of earmarking of land to Appellant has been stated. Since no such earmarking of land to Appellant was necessary (as entire land of the land at Gat No.115 was sold), the observation as regards failure of Appellant for want of corroboration, leads to prima facie error.” Findings & Analysis : 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, ITAT has held in Para 6 as under : “6. 5 I.T.A.No.1272/PUN./2023 We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing vehement rival stands and see no merit in assessee’s arguments. We make it clear first of all that the assessee had co-purchased the land in question on 23.09.2015 followed by the partial sale thereof in the very previous year i.e., 29.01.2016 only. Meaning thereby that his specific portion in the said parcel of land has never seen full-fledged partition even as on date. We sought to note from the assessee side in this factual backdrop as to how he could claim specific expenditure on his own without having received the earmarked portion. He replies that he has filed all the relevant details and therefore, entitled for the impugned expenditure for computing his short term capital gains. We see no merit in assessee’s submissions as merely by filing documentary evidences, he could hardly meet the case of allowability of expenditure on account of his failure to prove the corroborative circumstances. Rejected accordingly.” 4. Thus, ITAT had decided the issue stating that cost of improvement is not allowable as there is no specific partition of the MA No.51/PUN/2024 [A] 3 land. In this case, the grounds of appeal raised before ITAT were as under : “1. The ld.CIT(A) NFAC (hereinafter called as learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of cost of development expenses amounting to Rs.30,56,854/- made by the learned AO against the sale of Plot at GAT no 115, Kesnand, Pune. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of cost of development expenses incurred amounting to rs.30,56,854/- for Plot at GAT no 115, Kesnand without considering the detailed submission made along documentary evidence to substantiate the claim of such expenditure vide submission dated 10/05/2023. Learned CIT(A) erred in observing that, appellant could not furnish any supporting documentary evidence for claim of development expenses without appreciating that, the appellant has submitted relevant documents/information during appellate proceedings.” 4.1 The basic facts are discussed here. Vide purchase deed dated 23.09.2015, Assessee along with six other persons purchased a land having are 367.5R for Rs.6,33,40,625/-. As per the assessment order, it has been claimed by assessee that Assessee’s share was only 14.30%, accordingly, Assessee had invested only Rs.94,31,341/- as his share. Out of the said land, 189R was sold on 29.01.2016. Assessee had received Rs.82,56,000/- as his share. In this case, assessee has claimed short term capital gain on account of sale of land purchased during the year. Assessee had arrived at the figure of short-term capital gain after claiming cost of improvement of Rs.30,56,854/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the said cost of improvement on the ground that supporting documentary evidences MA No.51/PUN/2024 [A] 4 were not submitted. The relevant paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4 are reproduced here as under : “4.3 The submissions of the AR have been considered. It is worthwhile to mention here that the AR has simply claimed an amount of Rs.30.56.854/-as assessee's share towards development/improvement expenses. However, no details whatsoever regarding the nature of development/improvement work carried out, the supporting documents/bills etc for the expenditure incurred have been provided. Moreover, according to the AR, the assessee and other co-owners have spent about Rs. 2.25 crores on a land of 189 R within a short period of 4 months from its purchases. During the course of hearing on 18-12- 2018, the AR has submitted only a working of capital gain on sale of the land. No other details have been provided. Therefore, vide order sheet entry dated 18-12-2018, it was communicated to the AR that in the absence of details regarding nature of development/improvement work carried out and supporting documentary evidences, the claim for deduction on account of development/improvement cost cannot be allowed. The AR was therefore, asked to show cause why the deduction claimed on account of development expenses at Rs. 30,56,854/-should not be disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The AR was accordingly given time upto 20-12-2018, however, till disposal of this assessment, no details whatsoever have been provided. It is therefore, assumed that the assessee has nothing to say in the matter and in fact, it appears that the claim regarding improvement cost/development expenditure is not supported by any documentary evidences and it appears that such a claim has been made just to reduce the tax liability. Thus, considering the facts and circumstance of the case and in the absence of any details whatsoever, the claim regarding improvement/development expenditure is disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee 4.4 As stated above, the AR has worked out the short term capital gain at Rs.3,41,742/-on account of sale of 189 R of land out of the land purchased during the year This amount of short term capital gain was worked out after deducting the improvement cost of Rs.30.56.854/- as discussed above. However, for the detailed reasoning given above, the development expenses has been disallowed for want of supporting documentary evidences. Therefore, the total disallowance amounts to Rs.33,98,596/ which is added to the total income of the assessee. Since the assessee has concealed particulars of income, penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c)of the LT. Act are being separately initiated.” MA No.51/PUN/2024 [A] 5 5. Assessee filed a paper book during the hearing before ITAT. As per said paper book, the documents mentioned at page no.166, 167 to 187 are invoices and vouchers for the development expenditure, and ld.AR for the assessee has submitted that these documents were filed before the ld.CIT(A). However, ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] in para 5.3 mentioned that no supporting documents were submitted for the cost of improvement and hence, ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 5.1 In these facts and circumstances of the case, the issue before us during the hearing was whether cost of improvement is allowable as expenditure or not! Another issue was whether the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] had erred in not considering the vouchers claimed to have been submitted by assessee. However, the ITAT upheld the addition on the ground that land has not been partitioned. We agree with ld.AR for the Assessee that this was never the question raised by AO or ld.CIT(A). In these facts and circumstances of the case, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed. We recall our order in ITA No.1272/PUN/2023. The registry is directed to fix up the hearing date and issue notices to both the parties accordingly. MA No.51/PUN/2024 [A] 6 6. In the result, Miscellaneous Application raised by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10 July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- MS.ASTHA CHANDRA Dr.DIPAK P. RIPOTE JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated :10th July, 2025/ SGR आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. "