MAHENDRABHAI KHUSHALBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), VADODARA
Facts
The assessee sold agricultural land and claimed it was not a capital asset. The Assessing Officer disagreed, treating it as a capital asset and levying capital gains tax. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision.
Held
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence from the assessee and found that the Revenue had not had an opportunity to examine it. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for further verification.
Key Issues
Whether the agricultural land sold by the assessee falls within the definition of 'capital asset' based on its distance from municipal limits.
Sections Cited
148A, 148, 2(14)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR
PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:
-
The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, vide order dated 24.07.2025 relevant to the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.60,96,500/- on account of sale of rural agricultural land. Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2–
On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.60,96,500/- without considering that the said property falls within the definition of agricultural land as provided u/s.2(14) of the Act and therefore it is not taxable.
On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.60,96,500/- by relying solely on the report filed by the Sub-
