AHMED MAHOMED PANDOR,BHARUCH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TXN., VADODARA, BARODA

ITA 1602/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 March 2026AY 2016-17Bench: the AO that the land sold by the assessee was agricultural land not falling in the definition of capitall asset as defined u/s 2(14) of the Act. However, the AO did not agree with the above submissions of the assessee and made the impugned addition of Rs.8,75,97,656/- into the income of the assessee apart from assessing the income from other sources as declared by the assessee in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made b6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the LTCG addition, ruling that the land retained its agricultural character at the time of sale as it was located beyond the prescribed municipal limits for a capital asset, despite being later converted for industrial use by the purchaser. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, relying on previous High Court and ITAT judgments. The assessee's legal grounds challenging the validity of the re-opening and jurisdiction were deemed academic and kept open for future consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, sold two immovable properties but did not declare capital gains, claiming the land was agricultural and not a capital asset. The AO disagreed, re-opened the assessment, and added Rs. 8,75,97,656/- as Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG). The CIT(A) subsequently deleted this addition, leading to cross-appeals by both the Revenue and the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the land sold by the assessee qualified as agricultural land and thus fell outside the definition of a capital asset under the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether the re-opening of assessment, jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, and related approvals were valid under the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 2(14),Section 2(14)(iii)(b)(1),Section 151,Section 144C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, AR
Hearing: 10/12/2025Pronounced: 09/03/2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.1667/Ahd/2025
ITA No.1602/Ahd/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present are cross-appeals one by the Revenue and the other by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 06/06

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →