What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the first two grounds of appeal. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on these specific grounds.

The assessee appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which upheld additions made by the Assessing Officer on the sale of agricultural land. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) failed to decide the legal grounds raised before him.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated all grounds of appeal, particularly the legal grounds concerning the addition on sale of agricultural land.

Shri Loknath Sahu, Durg vs ITO | ITAT Raipur 2022

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, AT RAIPUR

Before: HON’BL SHRI RAVISH SOOD & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi

Pronounced: 26/12/2022

ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; This appeal challenges the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Raipur [for short “CIT(A)”] dt. 06/06/2020 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short “the Act”], which ascended out of assessment order dt. 28/12/2018 passed u/s 143(3) by the Income Tax Officer 2(1), Bhilai [for short “AO”] for assessment year [for short “AY”] 2011-12. ITAT-Raipur Page 1 of 3

The grounds raised

for adjudication are;

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in not deciding legal grounds set out at Serial No.1 and 2 in the appeal memo.

2. (a) In facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining addition of gross amount of Rs.1,48,17,750/-, (which is inclusive of Rs.29,33,750/- received through cheque) being consideration received on sale of agricultural land. (b) In the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs.84,47,750/- as difference between sale consideration and registry value which was confirmed by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)

3. In facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.29,33,750/- out of Rs.43,83,750/- made by Ld. Assessing Officer.

4. The impugned order is bad in law and on facts.

5. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter, omit or withdraw all or any of the grounds of appeal.

Before we could narrate the facts of the case, it is apt to state that, the learned representative for the assessee [for short “AR”], at the outset of hearing adverting to the grounds of appeal raised before the first appellate authority [for short “FAA”] (page 1 of ITAT-Raipur Page 2 of 3

Shri Loknath Sahu Ld. CIT(A) did not dealt with the first two ground of appeal raised before him, and for the reason the appellant requested for remanding the file back to the FAA, which the learned departmental representative [for short “DR”] solidified and expressed his no objection, ergo without going into facts and merits of the case, we deem fit to remand the matter back to the file of Ld. FAA for the limited purpose of adjudication on the ground number 1 & 2 originally raised before him and as set in the impugned appellate order.

4. Resultantly, the appeal of the appellant assessee is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE in above terms. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this MONDAY 26th Day of December, 2022.

SHRI LOKNATH SAHU,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WAD-2(1), BHILAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments