VIJAYALEKSHMI K S,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO WARD1(3), TRIVANDRUM
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri Soundararajan K., Judicial Member ITA No. 50/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vijayalekshmi K.S. The Income Tax Officer- 1(3) TC 10/1148, Lekshmi Vilas Aayakr Bhavan, Kawdiar Vattiyoorkavu vs. Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Thirivananthapuram 695013 [PAN: ABIPL7317C] (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: Shri KMV Pandalai, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 23.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 26.09.2024 O R D E R Per Bench This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 06.12.2022 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.
The only issued by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.80,20,774/- under the head long term capital gain even though the capital gain arose on transfer of agricultural land was not chargeable to tax.
The assessee in the year under consideration has shown long-term capital gain amounting to Rs. 80,20,774/- and claimed deduction u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the same amount. However, the assessee during the assessment
2 ITA No. 50/Coch/2023 Vijayalekshmi K.S. proceedings claimed that said gain was arising fromthe transfer of agricultural land and therefore the same is not taxable. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) disagreed with the contention of the assessee on the reasoning that the land in dispute was situated in Perrorkada village and therefore the same is an urban land. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the same and added the sum of Rs. 80,20,774/- as income under the head capital gain. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the AO.
Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us.
The ld. AR of the assessee before us filed a certificate issued by the Trivandrum Corporation dated 26.12.2021 certifying that the land in dispute was within the limits of Vattiyoorkavu Grama Panchayath prior to 30th September 2010. The learned A.R. also filed Form P (basic tax register) demonstrating that the land in dispute was used for growing paddy. The learned A.R. also filed Revenue records duly notarized demonstrating that the land in dispute was agricultural land. As per the learned A.R. all these documents were not produced before the authorities below which requires to be considered at the level of the AO in the interest of natural justice and fair play. Thus, the ld. ARbefore us prayed to set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR raised no objection if the matter is set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the learned A.R. before us has filed additional documents which are crucial to deciding the issue at hand. Therefore, we
3 ITA No. 50/Coch/2023 Vijayalekshmi K.S. admit the same under rule 29 of ITAT Rules 1963 and set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 26th September, 2024 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (Soundararajan K) (Waseem Ahmed) Judicial Member Accountant Member Cochin, Dated: 26th September, 2024 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order
Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin
