PINKI FRESH FOODS LIMITED,CHITTOOR vs. ITO., WARD-1, CHITTOOR

ITA 1151/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 July 2025AY 2015-16Bench: us :19 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording an opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of whether the land was a capital asset was not properly addressed.

What were the facts?

The assessee company sold agricultural land and received interest income but did not file its return. Proceedings under Section 147 were initiated, and the Assessing Officer made additions for capital gains and unexplained interest income. The CIT(A) upheld these additions ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the land sold was agricultural land and thus not a capital asset, and whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal ex-parte.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 2(14),Section 112,Section 194A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Pronounced: 04.07.2025

प्रनत रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M.

The present appeal filed by the assessee company is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated

2 Pinki Fresh Foods Limited.

02.02.

2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short “A.O.”) u/s

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →