SHABBIR MOHAMMED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIKARABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 271/HYD/2020Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 February 2021AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue of land being a capital asset back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification. The assessees were directed to appear before the AO with necessary evidence for further proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessees appealed against the CIT(A)'s orders which treated their agricultural land as a capital asset, leading to long-term capital gains. The primary contention was that the authorities failed to prove the land was within the specified distance from a municipality as per Section 2(14) of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether agricultural land sold by the assessees qualifies as a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, and whether the sale occurred in the assessment year in question.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(14),Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”: HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad
For Respondent: Shri Balakrishna &
Hearing: 02/02/2021Pronounced: 04/02/2021

dated 06/01/2011, except & 278/H/2020, which are dated 20/01/2020, passed in cases Nos. 10385, 10424, 10386, 10380, 10388, 10382, 10383 and 10389/2018-19/CIT(A) - 2 , involving proceedings u/s 143(3) rws 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”. I have heard all the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It transpired during the course of hearing that all these assessees’ have raised an identical substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in treating their agricultural a capital asset(s) giving rise to long term capital gains in issue. Learned counsel’s first and foremost contention is that the authorities below have nowhere proved that land(s) sold as capital asset(s) within the specified distance of 8 kilometers to the nearest municipality as per section 2(14) of the Act. He filed the land distance details on record by way of additional evidence which was not the matter of adjudication either in the assessment or CIT(A)’s order in dispute. I therefore deem it fit and proper to restore the :- 3 -: and others Muneer Mohammed and others.

instant sole identical issue raised in all these appeals back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh factual verification.

3.

Learned counsel at this stage also sought to buttress the assesseees’ pleadings that the land in dispute has in fact been sold in the subsequent AY and therefore impugned additions in AY 2011-12 herein would not survive. I therefore direct these assessees’ to appear before the Assessing Officer themselves or through their authorized representative(s) on or before 31st July, 2021 with all the necessary evidence to be followed by three effective opportunities of hearing.

4.

These assessees’ appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Pronounced in the open court on 4th February, 2021.

More judgments on Section 2(14)

All 1,130 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(14) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →