TARAKKUMAR ARVINDBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(4), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1141/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 April 2026AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to verify the assessee's contentions and obtain a report from Land Revenue authorities regarding the land's distance from municipal limits.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold land and claimed it was rural agricultural land, not a capital asset. The CIT(A) rejected this, stating the certificate from the Talati/Gram Panchayat was not conclusive proof. The assessee argued the AO did not consider their evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the land sold by the assessee qualifies as a capital asset or is rural agricultural land, and whether the AO properly considered the assessee's evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(14)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH ‘SMC’, SURAT

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CA
Hearing: 22/04/2026Pronounced: 27/04/2026

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT(A), Agra [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 29/09/2024 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 2. The short issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the land sold by the assessee falls within the definition of capital asset as defined u/s.2(14) of the Income Tax Act or rural agricultural land not falling in the definition of capital asset ? Asst. Year : 2

3.

The assessee, in this respect, has relied upon the Certificate of Talati/Gram Panchayat, wherein, it has been certified that the land in question is beyond 8KMs from the limits of Surat Municipal Corporation. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the said certificate is not a conclusive documentary proof and that the such certificate should be issued by Municipal Corporation or Land Revenue authorities. The AR of the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer (AO) has not given any finding on merits considering the evidences furnished by the assessee. He has simply relied upon the assessment order in the case of other co-owner without considering the submissions of the assessee. The Ld. AR has submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the AO and the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the AO.

4.

Considering the above submissions, the matter is restored to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the assessee's contentions and seek a report from the concerned Land Revenue authorities regarding the distance of the land in question from the Municipal Limits as it stood at the time of its transfer by the assessee.

5.

With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27 /04/2026. ( Sanjay Garg ) Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 27/04/2026 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS Asst. Year : 3

आदेश की #ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ% / The Appellant 2. #&थ% / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु' / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु' अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय #ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण सूरत /AR,ITAT, Surat/Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स&ािपत #ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt.

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 →