ANISH VISHNOI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR V. ITO WARD 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 764/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Anish Vishnoi, who appealed against the reassessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur, which was upheld by the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The reassessment was based on the sale of three agricultural lands, where the Assessing Officer treated the land at Village Magarchaba as a capital asset, leading to an addition of Rs.34,12,620 as LTCG. The CIT(Appeals) initially accepted the agricultural status of the land but later upheld the addition citing receipt of 'on-money'. The Tribunal found that the land was indeed agricultural based on Patwari certificates and Google map verification, and criticized the Assessing Officer for not adhering to the principles of natural justice, including not providing the assessee with necessary documents and not allowing a proper opportunity to contest the findings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 834592 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHISHEK MAHAWAR; FILING REPLY DATED
• Keywords: Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Cost of acquisition; Principle of natural justice; TDS
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 2(14)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपुर मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR Įी पाथ[ सारथी चौधरȣ, ÛयाǓयक सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.764/RPR/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Anish Vishnoi New Bus Stand Baloda Bazar, Baloda Bazar S.O., Raipur (C.G.)-493 332 PAN: AEAPV0087J .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026 Printed from counselvise.com 2 Anish Vishnoi Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.764/RPR/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 26.09.2025 for the assessment year 2015-16 as per the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the reassessment order purportedly passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B, even though the Assessing Officer who initiated the proceedings u/s 148 had no valid jurisdiction to do so. The assumption of jurisdiction itself being void ab initio, the entire reassessment proceedings stand vitiated and the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the validity of the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B by the Ld. Assessing Officer without following the mandatory faceless assessment procedure, rendering the assessment void ab initio. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in arbitrarily rejecting the objection raised by the Appellant against the draft assessment order. The same is unjustified, erroneous and unsustainable. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has partly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.34,12,620/- as Long-Term Capital Gain, by considering the land at Village Magarchaba as Capital Asset and taking the total sale consideration at Rs.34,12,620/- instead of Rs.17,28,000/- with a direction to AO to consider the actual Cost of Acquisition of Land despite acknowledging and accepting the submissions made by the appellant that agricultural land is rural agricultural land and not a capital asset u/s 2(14). 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the adhoc addition of Rs. 16,84,620/- on account of on-money, without Printed from counselvise.com 3 Anish Vishnoi Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.764/RPR/2025 providing any detail/documents to the appellant on the basis of which view has been formed and without providing opportunity of being heard or cross examine or verify the said documents. 6. The appellant craves to add alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.” 2. At the very outset, it is noted that the appeal is time barred by 5 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition a/w. affidavit dated 21.11.2025 explaining the reasons of delay. The relevant extract of the said affidavit is culled out as follows: Printed from counselvise.com 4 Anish Vishnoi Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.764/RPR/2025 3. I have carefully considered the contents of the affidavit as well as delay condonation petition. I do not find any deliberate or malafide conduct on the part of the assessee for filing appeal belatedly. Rather, due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee, such delay has occurred. That even the Ld. Sr. DR also conceded for condonation of the said delay. Accordingly, the delay of 5 days involved in the present appeal is condoned keeping in view of the directives in the judgments viz. (i) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC); (ii) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (iii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025 and (iv) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025. Printed from counselvise.com 5 Anish Vishnoi Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.764/RPR/2025 4. The brief facts in this case are as follows: “3. During the year under consideration, the appellant had sold three agricultural lands. The details of which is as below: S. No. Description of property Khasra No. Date of sale Sale Value (in Rs.) 1. Agricultural land at Village Magarchaba, Tehsil : Baloda Bazar 735 27.06.2014 17,28,000 2. Agricultural land at Village Parsabhader Gram Panchayat Kokdi, Tehsil- Baloda Bazar 35/4 04.10.2014 2,57,000/- 3. Agricultural land at Village Patidih, Tehsil- Baloda Bazar 53/7 397/1, 397/2, 408/2, 419, 455/4) 05.12.2014 32,28,000 The distance of the land from the local limits of municipality (i.e from the municipal limit of Baloda Bazar) is more than 2 Km and the population of the area is less than 10,000. Hence, the property sold by the appellant is agricultural land and as per Clause (iii) of Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Such agricultural land is not a capital asset and therefore any gain earned on sale of such land is not taxable. 4. A notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 was issued by the Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (the Jurisdictional AO'). In response to the same, the appellant filed its return of income on 23.04.2021 declaring total income of Rs. Printed from counselvise.com 6 Anish Vishnoi Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.764/RPR/2025 3,03,380/- under the provisions of the Act. The notice u/s 143(2) r.w.s 147 dated 08.10.2021 along with reasons was issued by the jurisdictional AO. 5. The reasons recorded for reopening of the case stated that \"Please find the sale dead of the property sold by you during the year under consideration and reason for not showing capital gain earned on such transmission in the return of income field by you in response to the notice of 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\" However, no sale deed was attached with the notice. 6. In response, the appellant filed letter dated 23.10.2021 raising objections to the reopening of the case based on various grounds and requesting the documents relied upon for formation of such reason for reopening. However, the Additional/ Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income tax/ Income Tax officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (`the Assessing Officer') rejected the objections vide communication dated 17.01.2022 stating that the land is a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the act. 7. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) dated 20.01.2022 was issued by the assessing officer requiring the appellant to furnish various details and documents. the said notice was duly complied by the appellant by filing reply dated 27.01.2022 where in the appellant submitted its computation of income, copy of all the bank statements for the relevant period, certificate from the Patwari regarding the distance of land sold from the nearest municipal corporation i.e from Baloda Bazar Municipal Corporation and copy of Purchase deed of the properties sold. 8. Against the same, the Ld. AO issued a show cause notice cum draft assessment order dated 17.03.2022 proposing addition of Rs.34,12,620/- as Long-Term capital Gain with respect to sale of land situated at Village Magarchaba and accepting the other two lands as agricultural land.” 5. That when the matter went before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, as evident from Para 8.4 onwards, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has accepted Printed from counselvise.com 7 Anish Vishnoi Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.764/RPR/2025 that the said land is an agricultural land and is outside the purview of capital asset and therefore, no capital gain should be attracted. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC writes that on perusal of the remand report and other documents including submission of the assessee, it is found that the allegation of the A.O was incorrect and invalid as the distance of the land from the municipal limit is 2.75 Km as per google map and further the same was verified from certificate of Patwari issued vide order dated 17.03.2022 wherein it was clearly stated that distance of the land as per google map is 2.75 Km from municipal limit. Hence, the above allegation of the A.O is baseless, incorrect and invalid. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC further writes that the A.O violated the fundamental rules of justice in reaching to the conclusion. Firstly, the A.O has not provided the complete set of information recorded as reasons to the assessee nor did he provide evidence or copy of google map wherein it was measured distance of rural land of the assessee at Magarchaba village. Secondly, the A.O has failed to provide any opportunity to rebut the evidence used by him ( i.e. google map or any other document) and /or statement from where he inferred that the assessee has received any ‘on money’. Finally, the A.O has also declined to consider the evidence/materials provided by the assessee ( i.e. Patwari certificates with measurements) and therefore, principles of natural justice specifically “Audi-Alteram Partem” was totally disregarded by the A.O. However, later on, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC observes that Printed from counselvise.com 8 Anish Vishnoi Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.764/RPR/2025 the assessee had received ‘on money’ as additional over and above amounting to Rs.16,84,620/- in cash which the assessee had suppressed and held that A.O has rightly brought the sale consideration of Rs.34,12,620/- to tax as LTCG. 6. I have carefully considered the documents on record, heard the submissions of the parties herein and analyzed the facts and circumstances in this case. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC admits that the land in question is not a capital asset, rather it is an agricultural land since it is located at a distance of 2.75 Km from municipal limit as per the google map and also as per the Patwari certificate which certifies that the land to be an agricultural land. Further, at Para 8.4 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC order, it was observed by the first appellate authority that the A.O has acted behind the back of the assessee without confronting the assessee with all the relevant materials/evidences which have been used by the A.O against the assessee which was therefore, in violation of principles of natural justice. That once, it has been decided by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC that the allegation of the A.O that the said land was capital asset is baseless, incorrect and invalid and there has been gross violation of principles of natural justice and that in fact as per evidence furnished by the assessee the land sold is an agricultural land, thereafter, it is practically infructuous view regarding any ‘on money’ payment for transaction which itself is not taxable. In other words, once it Printed from counselvise.com 9 Anish Vishnoi Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.764/RPR/2025 has been decided that the nature of land is an agricultural land, for which, question does not arise for LTCG, when the entire transaction pertains to agricultural land which is outside the purview of taxation, in such scenario, the issue of receiving ‘on money’ itself becomes academic and ceases relevance. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is perverse, arbitrary, vitiated and bad in law. Accordingly, the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is set-aside and the A.O is directed to delete the addition from the hands of the assessee while providing appeal effect of this order. 7. As per the above terms grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 05th day of February, 2026. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 05th February, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, “एक-सदèय” बɅच, Printed from counselvise.com 10 Anish Vishnoi Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.764/RPR/2025 रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur Printed from counselvise.com "