ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MAULA GAZI, KOLKATA

ITA 3006/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 April 2026AY 2015-163 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The Revenue appealed the order of the CIT(A) which had reversed the Assessing Officer's addition. The addition was made by treating gains from the sale of agricultural land as income. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition.

Held

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) as the deletion of the addition was based on a remand report from the Assessing Officer himself, which found the assessee's claim to be in order. Therefore, no interference was warranted.

Key Issues

Whether gains from the sale of agricultural land are taxable as income, and if the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition based on the Assessing Officer's remand report was justified.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Kalyan Laha and Suman Bhattacharya

For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT- DR

Hearing: 13.04.2025Pronounced: 13.04.2025

ORDER

Per George Mathan, JM:

This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2014-15/10284138 dated 10.10.2025.

Shri Kalyan Laha and Suman Bhattacharya, Advocates, represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sallong Yaden, DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3. It was submitted by the ld. DR that the Assessing Officer has made an addition treating the gains received by the assessee from the sale of agricultural land as income. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has reversed the findings of the Assessing Officer. He vehemently relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and prayed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) may be reversed.

In reply, the ld. AR drew our attention to page 24 & 25 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) at para 6.3 wherein the ld. CIT(A) has extracted the remand report received from the Assessing Officer wherein the Assessing Officer has also given a finding that ‘after going through the appellant’s submission, documents available on record it is found that the claim of the assessee is in order’.

We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition on the basis of remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the same is upheld.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.