Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, ... vs Shyam Sunder Jhawar, Shadnagar on 10 April, 2026
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, है दराबाद पीठ
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Hyderabad 'A' Bench, Hyderabad
ी रवीश सूद, माननीय या यक सद य एवं ी मधुसूदन साव डया, माननीय लेखा सद य
SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 1601/Hyd/2025
( नधारणवष/ Assessment Year: 2012-13)
Income Tax Officer, VS. Shyam Sunder Jhawar,
Ward-1, Shadnagar.
Mahabubnagar. PAN: ACEPJ2268F
(अपीलाथ / Appellant) ( यथ / Respondent)
करदाताका त न ध व/ : None
Assessee Represented by
राज वका त न ध व/ : Shri D. Praveen, Sr. AR
Department Represented by
सुनवाईसमा तहोनेक त थ/ : 01/04/2026
Date of Conclusion of Hearing
घोषणा क तार ख/ : 10/04/2026
Date of Pronouncement
ORDER
PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:
The present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 04/07/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, "AO") under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), dated 2 ITA No.1601/Hyd/2025 ITO vs. Shyam Sunder Jhawar 31/03/2016 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. The revenue has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:
"1. The Ld CIT (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,00,00,000/- made on account of capital gains, without appreciating that the assessee had himself declared this amount in the revised return of income filed under section 139(5) of the Act.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deletion of the addition of Rs.2,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained income based on the revised return of income, despite the assessee's failure to substantiate the claim of inadvertent error or to file a second revised return as mandated under section 139(5).
3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the revised return duly verified by the assessee constitutes a valid admission and is binding unless retracted by cogent evidence, which was absent in the present case.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in shifting the onus entirely upon the Assessing Officer to prove the actual transaction of sale, ignoring that the primary burden to disprove the correctness of the revised return filed by the assessee.
5. Any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing."
2. Succinctly stated, the assessee who is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of second-hand vehicles and also deriving income from Weighbridge etc., had e-filed his return of income for AY 2012-13 on 21/09/2012 declaring an income of Rs.13,55,863/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such by the AO/CPC, Bengaluru on 20/05/2013. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 29/04/2013 declaring an income of Rs.12,05,863/- (including business income, rental income and income from weighbridge) after claiming current loss of Rs.1,50,000/-. 3 ITA No.1601/Hyd/2025
ITO vs. Shyam Sunder Jhawar Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under section 143(2) of the Act.
3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the AO that the assessee had disclosed income under the head "capital gains", wherein against the sale consideration of Rs.2 crores he had disclosed indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.27,19,799/- and claimed the balance amount of Rs.1,72,80,201/- as exempt under section(s) 54/54B/54D/54EC/54F/54G/54GA of the Act in the revised return of income. The AO in the course of the assessment proceedings, issued summons under section 131 of the Act, dated 23/03/2015. Thereafter, the AO recorded the statement of the assessee under section 131 of the Act on 26/03/2015. The assessee on being queried vide Q.No.10 about the sale of property for a consideration of Rs.2 crores and the "capital gains" of Rs.1,72,80,201/- disclosed by him in his revised return of income that was claimed as exempt by him under section(s) 54/54B/54D/54EC/54F/54G/54GA of the Act submitted that he had not sold any property during the subject year. Elaborating on his contention, it was submitted by him that he had erroneously in the revised return of income filed on 29/04/2014 entered the details in the "capital gains" column while for the fact was that no such transaction of sale of property was carried out by him during the year under consideration. Also, it was submitted by him that 4 ITA No.1601/Hyd/2025 ITO vs. Shyam Sunder Jhawar in his audit report, dated 03/09/2012 there was no mention of any such transaction.
4. Thereafter, the assessee' counsel vide his letter, dated 27/03/2015, submitted before the AO that in the revised return of income filed on 29/04/2013, the details in the schedule to "capital gains" (Page-15 of the ITR, Form-4) was erroneously filed by his staff.
5. The AO taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee had duly verified his revised return of income filed on 29/04/2013 vide Acknowledgement No.618205371290413, declined to accept the aforesaid claim of the assessee/assessee's counsel that erroneously details were filled in the schedule to "capital gains" in the revised return of income filed on 29/04/2013.
6. Also, the AO in absence of any evidence which would substantiate the assessee's claim for deduction of current year's loss of Rs.1.50 lakhs that was raised in the revised return of income, declined the same. Apart from that, the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80C of Rs.1 lakhs was denied in absence of any supporting documentary evidence. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 31/03/2015 determined the income of the assessee at Rs.2,33,89,232/-.
5ITA No.1601/Hyd/2025
7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A).
8. Apropos the addition of the full value of sale consideration of Rs.2 crores by the AO, the CIT(A) observed that he had made the said addition without identifying the property that was sold by the assessee during the year under consideration. It was observed by him that without identifying the property that had been transferred and without detecting the proceeds of the sale in the bank account or books of account of the assessee, it could not be concluded that there was any concealment on the part of the assessee. Accordingly, the CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs.2 crores. For the sake of clarity, we deem it apposite to cull out the observations of the CIT(A), as under:
"6. Decision I have considered the facts of the case, the assessment order and the submission filed at the appellate stage. Although seven grounds have been raised, Ground Nos. 1, 6 and 7 are general in nature. In the written submission, only Ground No. 3 regarding addition of entire consideration of Rs.2.00.00.000/- have been contested. Ground No. 2 being an admitted addition is dismissed. Similarly Ground Nos. 4 and 5 are also dismissed as not pressed.
In regard to Ground No. 3, the AO has relied on the numerical particulars filled in about sale of immovable property (Ref: Q. No. 10 of the deposition dated 26.03.2015) in the revised return of income. He also relied on the declaration in the verification columns of both the original return filed on 21.09.2012 and the revised return filed on 29.04.2013. Further, the AO also relied on the fact that the mistake in the returns was not removed by filing a second revised return.
On the other hand, the appellant has taken the stand that the column related to capital gains was filed through mistake by the staff member 6 ITA No.1601/Hyd/2025 ITO vs. Shyam Sunder Jhawar of the auditor and there was no sale of any immovable property during the FY 2011-12.
I find that the AO has made no effort to identify which property was sold by the appellant during the FY 2011-12. He has not been able to bring any documentary evidence on record by his enquiry either from the past assessment records of the appellant or from enquiry in the office of Registrar of Assurances. Without identifying the property that has been transferred and without detecting the proceeds of sale in the bank accounts or books of accounts of the appellant, it cannot be concluded that there was concealment of income on the part of the appellant. In my considered view, there was an error in filing up the return form.
In the facts of the case, I direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs.2,00,00,000/- Ground No. 3 raised by the appellant is allowed.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.:
9. Aggrieved, the revenue has carried the matter in appeal before us. We find that the assessee respondent having been put to notice about the hearing of the appeal has for the last three occasions had neither put up any appearance nor filed any application for adjournment before us. Also, when the matter was called for hearing today, no appearance was put up by the assessee. We thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts are constrained to proceed with and dispose of the appeal as per Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
10. We have heard the Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, "Ld. Sr-DR") and perused the orders of the authorities below.
11. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from the record that the assessee in his revised return of income filed on 29/04/2013 vide Acknowledgement No. 618205371290413 disclosed sale of property for 7 ITA No.1601/Hyd/2025 ITO vs. Shyam Sunder Jhawar a consideration of Rs.2 crores, against which he had after claiming deduction of indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.27,19,797/-, disclosed long term capital gains (LTCG) of Rs.1,72,80,201/- which was claimed as exempt under section(s) 54/54B/54D/54EC/54F/54G/54GA of the Act.
12. We find that the assessee on being called upon to furnish the requisite details to support his aforesaid claim of exemption, vide his reply to Q.No.10 of his statement recorded under section 131 of the Act, dated 21/06/2015 denied of having sold any immovable property during the year under consideration. Also, it was stated by him that he had erroneously entered the aforesaid details in the "capital gains" column while the fact was that no such sale transaction had taken place during the year under consideration. Thereafter, the assessee's Counsel vide his letter, dated 27/03/2015 had submitted before the AO that due to a mistake on the part of his staff member the details were erroneously filled in the "capital gains" column/schedule (Page-15 of the ITR, Form-
4). However, we find that the AO had summarily discarded the aforesaid statement of the assessee as well as the admission of the assessee's counsel, and without bringing on record any details about the subject property that was sold during the year and/or details of the bank accounts/books of accounts of the assessee where the impugned sale 8 ITA No.1601/Hyd/2025 ITO vs. Shyam Sunder Jhawar consideration was deposited made an addition of the said amount in the hands of the assessee.
13. We have given thoughtful consideration to the facts involved in the present case and find no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A). In our view, now when the assessee had categorically stated in his reply to Q.No.10 of his statement recorded by the AO under section 131 of the Act, dated 26/03/2015 that he had not sold any property and the details were erroneously filled in the "capital gains" column, then the AO ought not to have summarily rejected the same. In fact, the admission of the assessee's Counsel vide his letter, dated 27/03/2015, wherein he had stated that the details in the schedule/column under the head "capital gains" (Page-15 of ITR, Form-4) in the revised return of income of the assessee filed on 29/04/2013 was erroneously filled by his staff member, therein further fortifies the claim of the assessee.
14. Be that as it may, we concur with the CIT(A) that now when the assessee had denied having sold any property for a sale consideration of Rs.2 crores during the subject year, then, in case, the same was not to be accepted by the AO, he ought to have placed on record any material evidence, i.e., copy of bank account or books of account or unexplained investment etc., made by the assessee which would fortify the fact that he had carried out the subject sale transaction during the year under consideration. In our view, as the AO had neither placed on 9 ITA No.1601/Hyd/2025 ITO vs. Shyam Sunder Jhawar record any primary evidence, i.e., (i) copy of the sale deed/agreement nor any secondary evidence, i.e., the copy of bank account, books of account evidencing any credits/deposit of the subject amount, there was no justification for the AO to have made the impugned addition. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A), who has rightly vacated the addition of Rs.2 crores, we uphold the same.
15. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10th April, 2026.
S
Sd/- Sd
Sd/- /- Sd/-
(मधुसूदन साव डया) (रवीश सूद)
(MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) (RAVISH SOOD)
लेखासद य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER या यकसद य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
d/-
Sd
Hyderabad, dated 10/04/2026.
OKK/sps
10
ITA No.1601/Hyd/2025
ITO vs. Shyam Sunder Jhawar
आदे शक त ल पअ े षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-
1. नधा रती/The : SHYAM SUNDER JHAWAR
9-88, VINAYAK NAGAR, SHADNAGAR,
Assessee
FAROOQNAGAR, MAHABUBNAGAR,
Mahbubnagar, Telangana-509216
2. राज व/ The Revenue : INCOME TAX OFFICER
Plot No.4, Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Bhasker Towers, Srinivasa Colony, Mahabubnagar., Mahbubnagar, Telangana-509001
3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad.
4. वभागीय त न ध, आयकरअपील यअ धकरण /DR,ITAT, Hyderabad.
5. The Commissioner of Income Tax
6. गाडफ़ाईल / Guard file आदे शानुसार / BY ORDER KAMALA KUMAR Digitally signed by KAMALA KUMAR ORUGANTI ORUGANTI Date: 2026.04.10 17:11:10 +05'30' Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad.