Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order dated 13.12.2024 for AY 2012-13, which denied exemption under section 548 regarding the sale of land. The assessee contended that the land sold on 03.02.2010 was agricultural in nature, genuinely utilized for agricultural activities, and that the agreement to sell date should be considered as the date of transfer. The CIT(A)'s order was based on the AO's findings without considering the assessee's submitted documents, including Fard Khasra Gardawri.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the original girdawari was not presented before the Assessing Officer, thus depriving the AO of an opportunity to examine the facts. Consequently, the case is remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) is instructed to obtain a remand report from the AO and provide the assessee with ample opportunity to present evidence and details.
Key Issues
Whether the land sold was agricultural and used for agricultural purposes qualifying for exemption, and whether the date of agreement to sell should be considered as the date of transfer for capital gains purposes, requiring fresh examination of evidence.
Sections Cited
Section 143, Section 147, Section 548
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM : Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi
209-Chd-2025 2
Grounds of appeal, as raised by the Assessee are reproduced as under:
1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. That the Ld. CIT is erred in law and facts of the case while issuing the order under section 143 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. The Ld. CIT erred in denying the exemption under section 548 of the Income tax Axt, 1961 by concluding that the nature of land sold was not agricultural & was not being utilised for agricultural purpose for the preceding two years prior to the date of transfer, whereas the land transferred by the assessee on 03.02.2010 was agricultural in nature & was genuinely utilised for the agricultural activities.
The Id. CIT erred in not considering the date of agreement to sell, i.e, 03.02.2010 as the date of transfer of the capital asset, thus ignoring the fact that once the agreement to sell in respect of immovable property is executed, the vendor is restrained from conducting any activity on the said land as the vendee gets a legitimate right to enforce a specific performance of the agreement and the same would amount to transfer of a Capital asset. The issue has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sanjeev Lal v. CIT [2014] 365 ITR 389/225 Taxman 239/46 taxmann.com 300 (SC).
209-Chd-2025 3
4. The Ld. CIT erred in not considering the two-year usage of land to be reckoned from 03.02.2010, i.e, from the date of agreement to sell executed by the assessee and has failed to consider the reply furnished by the assessee, dated 06.02.2021, supported with the relevant documents, i.e, Fard Khasra Gardawri (Land Inspection report) for the period from year 2007 to 2011, substantiating the nature and the period of activity carried out on the land was of an agricultural nature.
5. The Applicant craves to add, amend, modify or alter any grounds at any time or before the hearing/decision of the application.
3. At the very outset, it has been submitted before the Bench by the ld. Counsel for the Assessee that the documents filed before the Ld. CIT(A) has not been considered and the addition has been confirmed on the basis of findings given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order.
Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have considered the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) and the arguments made by the ld. Counsel for the Assessee as well as the ld. DR. We find that the original girdawari has not even
209-Chd-2025 4 produced by the Assessee before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had no opportunity to look into the facts of the case as claimed by the Assessee. Therefore, in the fitness of things the matter is remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merit after taking the remand report, if required, from the Assessing Officer. Needless to say, that the ld. CIT(A) will give proper opportunity to the Assessee to present its case and to furnish necessary evidences and details. The applicant is also directed to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A) as and when called for and will not contribute in unnecessary delay in the hearing of the appeal.