MOHD UMAR,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 1(4), MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7303/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 March 2020AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) provided a categorical finding on whether the land was within the municipal corporation limits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold agricultural land and the Assessing Officer made an addition for short-term capital gain. The assessee claimed the land was not a capital asset and was located far from the Municipal Corporation limits. Statutory notices were not received by the assessee, leading to a lack of opportunity to present objections.

What were the issues?

Whether the agricultural land qualifies as a capital asset, and whether it was situated within the municipal corporation limits for the purpose of capital gains taxation. The issue of proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee was also raised.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(14),Section 50C,Section 56

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘I(2

Before: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Hearing: 04.03.2020Pronounced: 13.03.2020

ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 29/01/2018 passed by CIT(A)- Meerut for Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under:-

“ 1. That Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the grounds of Appellant in respect of Capital Asset U/s 2 (14) (b) (III) of the I.T Act 1961. In fact the land in question is not a capital asset.

2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in observing that the agricultural land in question is situated within the limits of Meerut Municipal Corporation.

3. That Ld. CIT (Appeals) has also erred in not considering the fact that the appellant did not authorize Mohd. Naved, C.A. for hearing in assessment

proceeding before the A.O. as has mentioned in the assessment order dated 26-12-2016. That is why, proper opportunity was not provided to the appellant by the A.O. to file the objection in respect of Fair Market Value assessed by Stamp Valuation Authority under the provisions of Section 50C (2) of the I.T Act 1961.”

3.

The assessee is a trader and filed return of income regularly as per the submissions made as per the statement of facts submitted before the Tribunal. During the Financial Year 2013-14, the assessee sold agricultural land situated at Village Sakharpur, Tehsildar, District, Meerut which was situated 8 kilo meter away from Municipal Corporation of Meerut as mentioned in the facts. During the course of assessment proceedings statutory notices were not received by the assessee, therefore, the assessee was not able to appear before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order, thereby making addition of Rs. 14,83,750/- in respect of short term capital gain u/s 50C a/w Section 56 of the Income Tax Act.

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.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and there is no adjournment application on behalf of the assessee. The notice has been served to the assessee. Therefore, we are taking of the submissions of the assessee before the CIT(A) as well as before the Assessing Officer.

6.

The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The CIT(A) has not given any categorical finding as to on what basis the determine of whether the land in question comes within the limits of the municipal corporation. In-fact, the same was not done by the Assessing Officer as well. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.

8.

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

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13th March, 2020.

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 →