THEKKEDATHU RAMAN PILLAI BALACHANDRAN,PACHALAM, KOCHI vs. ITO, NON. CORP. WARD-1(1), KOCHI
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.
Held
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.
Key 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.
Sections Cited
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
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH
BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM
ITA No. 634/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Thekkedathu Raman Pillai Balachandran .......... Appellant 408-E, 4th Floor, National Heritage Apts. SRM Road, Pachalam, Kochi 682012 [PAN: ADKPB9138P] vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri Aravind and Shri Anil D. Nair, Adv. Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 29.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 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.
2 ITA No. 634/Coch/2025 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.
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).
3 ITA No. 634/Coch/2025 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.
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.
4 ITA No. 634/Coch/2025 Thekkedathu Raman Pillai Balachandran 6. In the result, the appeal of assessee bearing ITA No. 634/Coch/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 31st October, 2025 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin
