MAHIPATSINH RAMSEENH SOLANKEE,DEKAVADA, AHMEDABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5), VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1672/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mahipatsinh Ramseenh Solankee, the appellant, contesting the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer to the assessee's income for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The primary contention was regarding the non-examination of the appeal on merits by the CIT(A) and procedural issues such as the non-service of hearing notices to the assessee directly. The additions included the income from the sale of agricultural land, which was contested on grounds that it was rural land not subject to capital gains tax under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed these issues and thus remanded the case for a thorough re-examination by the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 829469 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Ahmedabad
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 234B; 2(14)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1672/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Mahipatsinh Ramseenh Solankee, 154-C, Vibhag-1, Kakubha No Madh, Dekavada, Detroj Rampura, Ahmedabad-382120 [PAN : GRIPS 1892 H] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(5, Ahmedabad (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri S.V. Agrawal, AR & Shri Divya S. Agrawal, AR Respondent represented by: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 13.01.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- “1. Hon. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in not deciding the appeal on merits. His order in concurrence of order of Ld. A.O. without himself going into merits of the case is in violation of Provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. The Hearing Notices are not served to assessee. They are served to Ex. A.R. who did not inform to assessee. 2. Hon. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition made by A.O. of Rs.1,49,66,253 (i.e. ½ share in Total Sale Price of Agricultural land of Rs.2,99,32,506) to the returned income by rejecting the claim of assessee, i. Mandatory Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is not served to assessee i. within time limit. ii. Rural Agricultural land sold is taxed as urban land, which is not capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act, by rejecting distance certificate. iii. Cost of acquisition of Agricultural Land sold is not allowed u/s 48 of the Act. However, Agricultural land sold is exempt u/s 2(14) of the Act. 3. Hon. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming interest u/s 234A of Rs. 1,78,460 and u/s 234B of Rs. 10,70,760 charged by A.Ο.” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1672/Ahd/2025 Mahipatsinh Ramseenh Solankee Vs. ITO Asst.Year :2020-21 - 2– 3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. At the time of hearing before us, we find that the order has been passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte. The Ld. DR, therefore, proposed that that the matter may be remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. 4. At this juncture, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the matter has not been examined in details by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. DR submitted that the buyer of the property being a company could not have purchased the agricultural land from the assessee and the amount in question shall be treated as capital asset. Considering the submissions of both the sides, in the interest of justice, the matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer who shall consider these arguments, take into consideration the complete details filed by the assessee and pass an order de novo. The assessee shall submit all the relevant details / statement / submission / supporting documents before the Assessing Officer and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Heard, dictated, pronounced and order issued in open court today on 13.01.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 13.01.2026 **btk आदेशकी\u0007ितिलिपअ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u0007/ The Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007/ The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु\u0015/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु\u0015(अपील) /The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय\bितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद/ DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation … ……………..13.01.2026 Printed from counselvise.com "