MAHIPATSINH RAMSEENH SOLANKEE,DEKAVADA, AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5), VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1672/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 January 2026AY 2020-21Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and considered arguments from both sides regarding the detailed examination by the AO and the classification of the land. In the interest of justice, the case was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with the assessee directed to provide all required details.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) which confirmed an addition of Rs. 1,49,66,253 on the sale of agricultural land, treating it as a capital asset. The assessee raised grounds including non-service of notices, incorrect land classification, disallowance of acquisition cost, and wrongly charged interest.

What were the issues?

Non-adjudication on merits by CIT(A) due to ex-parte order; Justification of addition on sale of agricultural land; Correctness of treating rural agricultural land as urban land/capital asset; Disallowance of cost of acquisition; Validity of interest charges.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 250(6),Section 143(2),Section 2(14),Section 48,Section 234A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Agrawal, AR &, Shri Divya S. Agrawal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Hearing: 13.01.2026Pronounced: 13.01.2026

(Assessment Year: 2020-21) Mahipatsinh Ramseenh Solankee, Vs. 154-C, Vibhag-1, Kakubha No Income Tax Officer, Madh, Dekavada, Detroj Rampura, Ward 3(3)(5, Ahmedabad-382120 Ahmedabad [PAN : GRIPS 1892 H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri S.V. Agrawal, AR & Shri Divya S. Agrawal, AR Respondent represented by: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 13.01.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2020-21.

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :-

1. Hon. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in not deciding the appeal on merits. His order in concurrence of order of Ld. A.O. without himself going into merits of the case is in violation of Provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. The Hearing Notices are not served to assessee. They are served to Ex. A.R. who did not inform to assessee.

2. Hon. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition made by A.O. of Rs.1,49,66,253 (i.e. ½ share in Total Sale Price of Agricultural land of Rs.2,99,32,506) to the returned income by rejecting the claim of assessee, i. Mandatory Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is not served to assessee i. within time limit. ii. Rural Agricultural land sold is taxed as urban land, which is not capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act, by rejecting distance certificate. iii. Cost of acquisition of Agricultural Land sold is not allowed u/s 48 of the Act. However, Agricultural land sold is exempt u/s 2(14) of the Act.

3. Hon. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming interest u/s 234A of Rs. 1,78,460 and u/s 234B of Rs. 10,70,760 charged by A.Ο.”

3.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. At the time of hearing before us, we find that the order has been passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte. The Ld. DR, therefore, proposed that that the matter may be remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh.

4.

At this juncture, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the matter has not been examined in details by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. DR submitted that the buyer of the property being a company could not have purchased the agricultural land from the assessee and the amount in question shall be treated as capital asset. Considering the submissions of both the sides, in the interest of justice, the matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer who shall consider these arguments, take into consideration the complete details filed by the assessee and pass an order de novo. The assessee shall submit all the relevant details / statement / submission / supporting documents before the Assessing Officer and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is 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 →