VASRAMBHAI RABARI LEGAL HEIR OF LATE DHULABHAI F. RABARI,BAMANGAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA, VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 343/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 January 2026AY 2013-14Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This decision was based on the finding that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) due to technical glitches in the faceless e-proceedings, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2013-14 concerning the taxation of Long Term Capital Gains on the sale of agricultural land, claiming it was not a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was delayed by 44 days, which was condoned, and the assessee alleged a violation of natural justice during e-proceedings as technical issues prevented document submission despite prior physical submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether gains from the sale of agricultural land are taxable as capital gains and if the principles of natural justice were violated during the e-assessment proceedings due to technical issues preventing document submission.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 2(14)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR
Hearing: 28/01/2026Pronounced: 30/01/2026

Year : 2013-14 Vasrambhai Rabari Legal Heir The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ of Late Dhulabhai F. Rabari Ward-3(1)(4) v/s. Rabari Falia Vadodara – 390 007 Bamangam, Karjan Vadodara – 391 210 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: BJDPR 6785 E (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR Revenue by : Shri Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 28/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 30/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred 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 03/10/2024 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.

2.

The appeal is time-barred by 44 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been stated that the Vasrambhai Rabari Legal Heir of Late Dhulabhai F. Rabari vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2013-14 assessee has been pursuing a rectification application before the Ld. CIT(A). That since the rectification application was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A), hence, the assessee had to file the appeal and because of the aforesaid reasons, a delay of 44 days has occurred in filing the appeal.

3.

Considering the above submissions, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.

4.

The short issue involved in this appeal is relating to taxing of the Long Term Capital Gains earned by the assessee on sale of agricultural land. The plea of the assessee before both the lower authorities has been that since the land falls in the definition of agricultural land and is out of the purview of definition of capital assets as defined u/s.2(14) of the Act, therefore, no capital gains tax is leviable on the amount received by the assessee on sale of land.

5.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has explained that, earlier, the assessee had filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) in physical form and had furnished all the relevant evidences and documents in support of his pleadings. However, thereafter, the case was transferred to faceless regime/e-proceedings. In the e-proceedings, only one opportunity was given to the assessee to upload his submissions/documents, which could not be uploaded due to technical glitches. The Ld. Counsel submitted that all the relevant documents and submissions of the assessee were already on record. He has submitted that, in this case, the principles of natural justice have been violated. The Ld. Counsel, therefore, has requested that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A). Vasrambhai Rabari Legal Heir of Late Dhulabhai F. Rabari vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2013-14

6.

The Ld. DR could not rebut the aforesaid factual position on the file.

7.

In view of the above discussion, in our view, the interests of justice will be well-served if the assessee be given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the assessee to present his case.

8.

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

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 →