SIMATAJVAR YUSUFKHAN KHAN,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(5), VADODARA

ITA 242/AHD/2022Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 January 2026AY 2013-14Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)13 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was not the owner of the land, the amounts received were indeed casual income and taxable. The AO's assumption of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment was not invalidated by a minor factual error regarding the quantum of the amount received.

What were the facts?

The assessee received amounts based on an MOU for the sale of land. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment, treating these amounts as casual income because the assessee could not establish ownership of the land.

What were the issues?

Whether amounts received based on an MOU for land sale are taxable as casual income when the recipient is not the owner, and whether a factual discrepancy in the AO's reasons for reopening invalidates the assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 56(2)(vii)(a),Section 151

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, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

For Appellant: Ms. Kaushani Shah, AR, Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
For Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Hearing: 08/01/2026Pronounced: 13/01/2026

PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM:

The present four appeals filed by the same assessee are against separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi all dated 22.04.2022 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

ITA Nos. 240 to 243/Ahd/2022 [Simatajvar Yusufkhan Khan vs. ITO] - 2 – (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relate to Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. I

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 →