MAHADEV GUNDU MORE,SINDHUDURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KUDAL, KUDAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 229/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 March 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to determine if the transferred land was a 'capital asset' and did not ascertain the cost of acquisition. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2013-14 was dismissed by the NFAC for non-prosecution. The assessee had challenged the addition of sale proceeds of Rs. 30,00,000/-, treating it as Short Term Capital Gain, and argued it was exempt rural agricultural land.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities correctly identified the asset as a capital asset and determined its cost of acquisition before making additions. The issue of whether the land was rural agricultural land and thus exempt was also a factor.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(14),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE [VIRTUAL HEARING]

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 18.03.2024Pronounced: 19.03.2024

For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri Manish Mehta Date of Hearing : 18.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1050819343(1), dated 16.03.2023, involving proceedings u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

1.

“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of non-prosecution of appeal.

2 ITA.No.229/PUN./2024 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming addition on account of sale proceeds Rs.30,00,000/- treating the entire amount as Short Term Capital Gain.

3.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the land sold is Rural agricultural land and share of assessee in proceeds are Rs.19,00,000/- only hence the sale proceeds received be held as exempt from tax.

4.

The appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.”

3. It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that both the learned lower authorities have added the impugned capital gains of so- called in assessee’s hands without giving a clear-cut finding that the latter had transferred a “capital asset” within the meaning of sec.2(14) of the Act. And that too without determining the cost of acquisition thereof as well. Faced with this situation, I deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh adjudication, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to the rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s onus and responsibility only to file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

3 ITA.No.229/PUN./2024 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 19.03.2024.

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 →