Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, did not file a return of income. Re-assessment proceedings were initiated under Section 147, and the Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for capital gains, business income, and income from other sources. The assessee argued that the land sold was agricultural and not a capital asset.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to furnish sufficient details before the lower authorities to prove the land was agricultural. However, since all details are now provided in the paper book, the issue deserves to be restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the land sold was an agricultural land not falling under the definition of 'capital asset' and if the re-assessment proceedings were validly initiated. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for a fresh assessment.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 250, 148, 142(1), 2(14), 80C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD
आदेश / ORDER
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 is directed against the order dated 13.02.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 30.12.2019 passed u/s.144 r.w.s 147 of the Act.
Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the ITO, as confirmed by the CITIA), NFAC is bad in law and hence needs to be quashed inasmuch as no addition has been made on the basis of which the case of the appellant was re- opened. The appellant prays it may be accordingly held.
2. The CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the addition made by the ITO of Rs. 13,04,450/- as Short Term Capital Gains on the sale of agricultural lands. The appellant submits that the land being an agricultural land not falling in the definition of 'capital asset in terms of the provisions of section 2(14), the addition is not warranted. The appellant prays that the ITO be directed to delete the addition.
3. The CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the action of the AO of not granting deduction u/s 80C of Rs. 69,852 for non-filing of return of income.
4. The CIT(A). NFAC erred in confirming the action of the AO of not granting credit for taxes of Rs. 1.12,320 While computing the liability. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above ground of appeal or raise a new ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income. Based on certain information notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued for carrying out the re-assessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. Assessee neither filed return of income nor submitted any compliance to the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer finally issued show cause notice before proceeding to frame best judgment assessment. Assessee filed reply stating that the source of alleged cash deposit is from sale of Agricultural land. However, for lack of necessary details about the agricultural activity being carried out on the said land, ld. Assessing Officer calculated the capital gain at Rs.13,04,450/-. Ld. Assessing Officer also computed the business income at Rs.6,66,271/- and income from other source at Rs.36,714/-. Income assessed at Rs.20,07,440/-.
Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). However, necessary details as called for by ld. CIT(A) could not be submitted. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee made reference to the paper book containing 170 pages and stated that assessee had raised the legal issue challenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings and also filed the details of purchase and sale deeds of the plots and also proof of deduction claimed u/s.80C of the Act. He therefore prayed that some of the details could not be filed before the lower authorities and therefore an opportunity may be granted to go before the ld. Assessing Officer for necessary re-adjudication.
Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand supported the orders of the lower authorities.
I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. Admittedly, the assessee failed to furnish sufficient details to prove that the Agricultural land sold during the year does not fall in the category of Capital asset. Now all the details in support of the grounds of appeal have been furnished in the form of paper book. Considering the same and also the prayer made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, I am of the considered view that since various details could not be filed before the lower authorities and they have a direct bearing on the issues raised before me, therefore, the issue raised in the instant appeal deserves to be restored to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for carrying out denovo assessment. Needless to mention that ld. JAO in the course of set-aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is directed to upload e- mail id and contact details on the ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds raised are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 16th day of July, 2025.