ABDUL MAJID JAINUDDIN CHIKATE,DAPOLI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI

ITA 1455/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Abdul Majid Jainuddin Chikate, the appellant, who contested the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which confirmed the additions made by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) regarding Short Term Capital Gains from the sale of agricultural lands and other income assessments for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The appellant argued that the agricultural land sold did not qualify as a 'capital asset' under section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thus the additions were unwarranted. Additionally, the appellant challenged the non-granting of deductions under section 80C and the non-acknowledgment of tax credits. The Tribunal found that the necessary details to substantiate the appellant's claims were not adequately presented to the lower authorities and thus warranted a de novo assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 708894 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPAK KUMAR KEDIA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAMOD S SHINGTE
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Capital Gains
• Section: 147; 80C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1455/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Abdul Majid Jainuddin Chikate, 1, Kalkai Kond, Dapoli, Dapoli, Ratnagiri 415712, Maharashtra PAN: AFIPC9108G Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ratnagiri Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 is directed against the order dated 13.02.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 30.12.2019 passed u/s.144 r.w.s 147 of the Act. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the ITO, as confirmed by the CITIA), NFAC is bad in law and hence needs to be quashed inasmuch as no addition has been made on the basis of which the case of the appellant was re- opened. The appellant prays it may be accordingly held. 2. The CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the addition made by the ITO of Rs. 13,04,450/- as Short Term Capital Gains on the sale of agricultural lands. The appellant submits that the land being an agricultural land not falling in the definition of 'capital asset in terms of the provisions of section 2(14), the addition is not warranted. The appellant prays that the ITO be directed to delete the addition. Appellant by : Shri Pramod S Shingte Respondent by : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia Date of hearing : 09.07.2025 Date of pronouncement : 16.07.2025 ITA No.1455/PUN/2025 Abdul Majid Jainuddin Chikate 2 3. The CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the action of the AO of not granting deduction u/s 80C of Rs. 69,852 for non-filing of return of income. 4. The CIT(A). NFAC erred in confirming the action of the AO of not granting credit for taxes of Rs. 1.12,320 While computing the liability. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above ground of appeal or raise a new ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income. Based on certain information notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued for carrying out the re-assessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. Assessee neither filed return of income nor submitted any compliance to the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer finally issued show cause notice before proceeding to frame best judgment assessment. Assessee filed reply stating that the source of alleged cash deposit is from sale of Agricultural land. However, for lack of necessary details about the agricultural activity being carried out on the said land, ld. Assessing Officer calculated the capital gain at Rs.13,04,450/-. Ld. Assessing Officer also computed the business income at Rs.6,66,271/- and income from other source at Rs.36,714/-. Income assessed at Rs.20,07,440/-. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). However, necessary details as called for by ld. CIT(A) could not be submitted. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee made reference to the paper book containing 170 pages and stated that assessee had raised ITA No.1455/PUN/2025 Abdul Majid Jainuddin Chikate 3 the legal issue challenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings and also filed the details of purchase and sale deeds of the plots and also proof of deduction claimed u/s.80C of the Act. He therefore prayed that some of the details could not be filed before the lower authorities and therefore an opportunity may be granted to go before the ld. Assessing Officer for necessary re-adjudication. 6. Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand supported the orders of the lower authorities. 7. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. Admittedly, the assessee failed to furnish sufficient details to prove that the Agricultural land sold during the year does not fall in the category of Capital asset. Now all the details in support of the grounds of appeal have been furnished in the form of paper book. Considering the same and also the prayer made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, I am of the considered view that since various details could not be filed before the lower authorities and they have a direct bearing on the issues raised before me, therefore, the issue raised in the instant appeal deserves to be restored to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for carrying out denovo assessment. Needless to mention that ld. JAO in the course of set-aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is directed to upload e- mail id and contact details on the ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds raised are allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.1455/PUN/2025 Abdul Majid Jainuddin Chikate 4 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 16th day of July, 2025. Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 16th July, 2025. Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "