SANKOCH KUMAR,HAPUR vs. ITO WARD - 3(5), HAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7486/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, following its own order in the assessee's brother's case. This was to allow the assessee to furnish additional evidence and establish that the land was not converted to non-agricultural purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which upheld the AO's decision that the land sold was not agricultural land and was a capital asset. The assessee requested the appeal be decided in line with his brother's case, where the matter was restored to the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the land sold by the assessee is agricultural land or a capital asset. The need to consider additional evidence regarding land conversion.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(14)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.03.2023

आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld.

1.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad dated 31.07.2019 for the AY 2011-12 in sustaining the action of the AO in holding that the land sold by the assessee is not agricultural land and is a capital asset under the provisions of Section 2(14)(iii).

2.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri R.K. Garg through letter dated 10.03.2023 requested for some time as he was 1 suffering from viral infection and advised bed rest or the appeal be decided in the lines of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of assessee’s brother and was also a co-owner of the land sold in question in dated 16.01.2023, wherein the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to consider the additional evidences furnished in the course of hearing and decide the appeal on merits. Copy of the order of the Tribunal was placed on record. We are perused the order of the Tribunal and find that the assessee in appeal before us i.e. Shri Sankoch Kumar and Shri Vipin Kumar in whose case the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) are both brothers and co-owners of the property which was sold and subject matter of dispute in these appeals. We observe that the Tribunal restored the appeal of the assessee in the case of Shri Vipin Kumar to the file of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) and to let the assessee file additional evidences and established that the land falling in the share of the assessee which was sold by the impugned sale deed was not converted to non-agricultural purposes by any order of Revenue authorities. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Ld.CIT(A) to pass the afresh order in terms of its observations made therein. The assessee in appeal before us being the co-owner of the property in dispute this appeal of the assessee also should go back to the Ld.CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication in the light of the observations made by the Tribunal in the case of Shri Vipin Kumar who is the brother of the assessee Shri Sankoch Kumar. Thus, following the order of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Vipin Kumar in ITA No. 7620/Del/2019 dated 16.01.2023, we restored the appeal of the assessee to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for passing afresh order in terms of the observations made by the Tribunal in the case of Shri Vipin Kumar.

3.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23.05.2023

More judgments on Section 2(14)(iii)

All 238 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(14)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →