VASANTHA KALYANASUNDARAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-15(5), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2772/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 August 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for examination of evidence regarding the agricultural land. Grounds related to Section 50(c) and computation were dismissed as infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an order concerning the assessment year 2015-16. Grounds related to DIN were dismissed as not pressed. The primary issue involved exemption on the sale of agricultural land.

What were the issues?

Whether the land sold qualifies as agricultural land for exemption purposes and the applicability of Section 50(c) in light of the remand.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(14),Section 50(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI. M. BALGANESH & BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

Hearing: 25.06.2026Pronounced: 03.08.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी ऐम. बालगनेश, लेखा सद एवं �ी एस.एस. िव$ने% रिव, �ाियक सद के सम& । BEFORE SHRI. M. BALGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2772/Chny/2025 िनधा(रण वष(/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vasantha Kalyanasundaram, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Old No. 7, New No.19/6, Non-Corporate Ward -15(5), 3rd Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai. Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [PAN: ABOPV-7644-N] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-थ+/Respondent) अपीलाथ+ की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. N. Arjunraj, Advocate ,-थ+ की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Nayani Swapna, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 25.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 03.08.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-16.

2.

Ground no.1 is general in nature requiring no adjudication.

2 ITA No. 2772/Chny/2025

3.

The ld.AR, Mr. N. Arjunraj, Advocate, submits that assessee is not

interested to prosecute ground nos. 2, 3 & 4 regarding DIN and

therefore, dismissed as not pressed.

4.

Ground no.5 to 7 & 16 raised by the assessee regarding

exemption u/s. 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after “the Act”)

on sale of agricultural land.

5.

At the outset, it was argued that no information whatsoever

furnished during the course of assessment proceedings as well as the

appellate proceedings which is evident from para no.4 of the impugned

order. The ld.AR placed on record paper book containing two sale

deeds dated 06.02.2003 & 25.02.2015 claiming that the lands sold are

agricultural lands which were not before both the authorities below, and

prayed to remand the matter to the file of AO.

6.

The ld.DR, Ms. Nayani Swapna, CIT, reported no objection.

7.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it

proper to remand the matter to the file of the AO for examination of

material evidences which claiming to be the agricultural land as argued

3 ITA No. 2772/Chny/2025

by the ld.AR and the AO shall examine the same and pass order in

accordance with law. Therefore, the order of the ld.CIT(A) is not justified

in this regard and is set aside. Ground nos. 5 to 7 & 16 are allowed for

statistical purposes.

8.

Regarding Ground nos. 8 to 10, since we have taken a view in

remanding the matter to the file of the AO in respect of ground nos. 5 to

7 & 16 with reference to claiming of exemption of sale of agricultural

lands, we find the issue raised in ground nos. 8 to 10 with reference to

provisions u/s. 50(c) of the Act becomes infructuous, however, the same

is open for assessee to raise before the AO in giving effect proceedings.

Thus, ground nos. 8 to 10 are dismissed as infructuous.

9.

Ground nos. 11 to 15 is in respect of computation, in our opinion

is consequential in nature and therefore, dismissed as infructuous.

10.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 03rd August, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALGANESH) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

4 ITA No. 2772/Chny/2025

Chennai, Dated: 03.08.2026 JPV आदेश की ,ितिलिप अ3ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ+/Appellant, 2.,-थ+/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु4/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय ,ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड( फाईल/GF.

Digitally signed by PRASANNA PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.08.06 10:06:42 +05'30'

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 →