THEKKEDATHU RAMAN PILLAI BALACHANDRAN,PACHALAM, KOCHI vs. ITO, NON. CORP. WARD-1(1), KOCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 634/COCH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 October 2025AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryN/A

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to present its case regarding the nature of the property before the revenue authorities and the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee a full opportunity to be heard and to furnish all relevant evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cost accountant, claimed exemption for long-term capital gain from the sale of agricultural land. The AO rejected this claim, treating it as taxable, and the CIT(A) upheld the assessment without properly addressing the agricultural nature of the property or providing reports relied upon to the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the gain from the sale of land was exempt as agricultural property, and whether the assessee was denied a fair hearing and opportunity to present evidence regarding the land's nature.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM

For Appellant: Shri Aravind and Shri Anil D. Nair, Adv
For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 29.10.2025Pronounced: 31.10.2025

O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act’) for Assessment Year 2016-17, date of order 04/08/2025. The impugned order is emanated from the order of the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corp, Ward-1(1), Kochi (in short, ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, date of order 20/12/2018.

Thekkedathu Raman Pillai Balachandran 2. The brief fact of the case is that the assessee is a cost accountant by profession. The return was filed under section 139(1) by declaring total income Rs.5,90,930/-. The assessee declared income exempted from taxation for sum of Rs.1,43,51,307/- which is included the agricultural income of Rs.20,000/-, share of profit from partnership firm Rs.2,16,589/- and exempted long term capital gain amount to Rs.1,41,14,718/- against sale of agricultural land. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. The Ld. AO rejected the long-term capital gain on sale of agricultural property Rs.1,41,14,718/- and treated it as taxable long term capital gain. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A)passed a speaking order without considering the ground of the assessee related to sale of property in nature of agricultural land. The appeal of the assessee was rejected. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before us.

3.

The ld. AR argued and filed a paper book containing pages 1 to 223 which is kept in record. The ld. AR invited our attention at APB pages 139 & 156 related nature of property mentioned in sale deeds. The assessee has taken specific ground that ld. AO went wrong in relying on the report received from inspector attached to his office as also a report of the Village officer, without giving a copy of these documents to the appellant. The specific ground was not dealt by the ld. CIT(A).

Thekkedathu Raman Pillai Balachandran 4. The ld. DR argued the matter but was unable to rebut the facts stated by the assessee. He, however, supported the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

5.

We heard the rival submission & considered the documents available on records. Since the assessee was effectively denied the opportunity to adjudicate the nature of property before the revenue authority in support of its case. The reasonable opportunity was also denied for the assessee when the specific ground was taken during the appellate proceeding. We consider it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant documents and evidence before the ld. CIT(A), who shall consider the same in accordance with law and decide the matter afresh after granting the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case so as to avoid any prejudice to the proceeding before the appellate authority. The assessee is further directed to remain diligent and extend full cooperation in the set-aside proceedings to facilitate expeditious disposal of the appeals.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2025.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →