TARA DATTA,HALDWANI vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(1), NANITAL
Facts
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming long-term capital gains of Rs. 1,52,37,360/- on the sale of a capital asset. The assessee did not appear for the hearing and was proceeded ex-parte. The department argued that the lower authorities correctly assessed the capital gains.
Held
The Tribunal noted that neither the assessment order nor the lower appellate discussion provided a categorical finding on how the assessee's land qualified as a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was whether the assessee's land could be classified as a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, given the lack of clear findings by the lower authorities.
Sections Cited
Section 143(3), Section 2(14)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH, DEHRADUN
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH, DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No.166/DDN/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mr. Tara Datta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Amratpuri, Mora Dogada, Ward-2(3)(1), Ranibagh, Kathgodam, Nainital Nainital, Haldwani, Uttarakhand PAN :BFQPD9361H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing 13.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 13.01.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078341742(1), dated 10.07.2025, involving proceedings under sections 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
ITA No.166/DDN/2025
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. Learned departmental representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly held the assessee as having derived longterm capital gains of Rs.1,52,37,360/- on sale/transfer of the relevant capital asset; in the assessment order dated 21.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. That being the case, learned Revenue could hardly dispute that there is no categorical finding either in the assessment order or in the lower appellate discussion as to how the assessee’s land could be held as capital asset under section 2(14) of the Act. We thus deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop to restore the instant appeal back to the learned Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing, in consequential proceedings. 3. This assesse’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th January, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 19th January, 2026. 2 | P a g e
ITA No.166/DDN/2025
RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
3 | P a g e