DNYANOBA TIPPANA PANDHARPUR,PANDHARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel representing the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had made impugned addition of Rs.28,41,280/- as long term capital gains in the hands of the assessee by disregarding the fact that the said land was agricultural land and is not included in definition of “capital asset” u/sec.2(14). He submitted that the order of the 2 ITA.No.124/PUN./2024 Assessing Officer was confirmed by the NFAC without affording proper opportunity to the assessee. He submitted that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to submit his grievance(s) before the first appellate authority. The Learned DR is equally fair enough in not objecting the aforestated submissions of the assessee.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The clinching fact is that the Assessing Officer had made the impugned addition of Rs.28,41,280/- as long term capital gains and the NFAC had confirmed the same without affording proper opportunity to the assessee, thereby, the NFAC not complied with the provisions of sec.250(6) of the Act requiring it to give points for determination followed by a detailed discussion thereof. Faced with the situation, I deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the NFAC for it’s 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.

These assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.