Dnyanoba Tippana Pandharpur, Pandharpur V. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Pandharpur, Pandharpur

ITA 124/PUN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8473 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.124/PUN./2024 Assessment Year 2011-2012 Dnyanoba Tippana Pathrut, 4075/95 Near Jain Mandir, Pandharpur – 413 304 Maharashtra. PAN BOLPP0336N vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(2), Income Tax Office, Solapur, SH-76, Atpadi Pandharpur Road, Pandharpur, 3488, Gopalpur Rd, Bhosale Nagar, Pandharpur. PIN – 413 304. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pramod S Shingte For Revenue : Shri B.S. Rajpurohit Date of Hearing : 28.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1053673156(1), dated 13.06.2023, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. These assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.02.2024. Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 28 th February, 2024 VBP/- 3 ITA.No.124/PUN./2024 Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The NFAC, Delhi. 4. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 5. D.R. ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.