SHRI KETANKUMAR ARVINDBHAI AMIN,CHHANI, VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 482/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 May 2025AY 2011-12Bench: Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee concerning the sale of agricultural land. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper verification of these evidences and to adjudicate the issue in accordance with the Income Tax Act.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual engaged in farming, sold agricultural land and declared Long Term Capital Gain. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147, computed the capital gain, and made an addition. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition and dismissed the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of agricultural land and whether additional evidence should be considered for proper adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 54F,Section 54B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH

Before: Dr. BRR Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &, Shri Parimalsinh Parmar, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. D.R

आदेश/ORDER

Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member:

1.

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 19-02- 2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2011-12.

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under:- “The appellant craves liberty to place on record concise grounds of appeal as follows in line with Rule 8 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963:

Shri Ketankumar Arvindbhai Amin, A.Y. 2011-12 1. Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in confirming the addition of Rs 1,15,01,000/- in respect of alleged Long Term Capital Gain on sale of agricultural land. 2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in not adjudicating additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee more than once.

3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in not appreciating that the agricultural land in question was owned by 'HUF and not by the assessee in his "Individual capacity.

4. Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in not appreciating that ‘transfer’ of the agricultural land in question took place in the Assessment Year 2019-20' and not in the "Assessment Year 2011-12’.

5. Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in not granting deduction of Rs. 7,43,000/- under section 54F of the Act.

6. Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in not granting deduction of Rs.60,43,150/- under section 54B of the Act.

7. The assessee craves liberty to add, amend and / or alter the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, change, delete and edit the above ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal.”

3. The assessee is an individual and the assessment proceedings u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act were completed on 20-02-2015 thereby determining total income of Rs. 11,70,000/-. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee sold an agricultural land for consideration of Rs. 1,79,00,000/-. On the basis of information available with the Assessing Officer, the assessment proceedings in the case were initiated u/s. 147 of the Act by recording reasons on the issue and notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the appellant/assessee. After taking Shri Ketankumar Arvindbhai Amin, A.Y. 2011-12 into consideration indexed cost of acquisition, the long term capital gain was computed at Rs. 1,15,01,000/- and the same was added to the income of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee could not file the details either before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A) as the assessee is an individual who is doing farming is not well aware about the legal intricacies. Therefore, the ld. A.R. submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) after taking into account the additional evidences filed before the Tribunal.

6.

The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The assessee at this juncture has filed the details related to the sale deed of agricultural land and the payment along with other details of the disputes in preset of the said land. This additional evidence filed by the assessee is admitted as the same is important evidence to adjudicate the matter on merits. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper verification of the evidences filed by the assessee before the Shri Ketankumar Arvindbhai Amin, A.Y. 2011-12 Tribunal and adjudicate the matter as per Income Tax Act. The assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14-05-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. BRR Kumar) (Suchitra Kamble) Vice President Judicial Member Ahmedabad : Dated 14/05/2025 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →