SHRI SHAILESH BALDEVBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 151/AHD/2017

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Shailesh Baldevbhai Patel, the appellant, contesting the classification of land at Motera as agricultural land, which would exempt it from being considered a 'capital asset' under section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court of Gujarat had earlier remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to specifically address the nature of the land at Motera, as it was not considered in previous rulings. The Tribunal, acknowledging the oversight, set aside the matter back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for a detailed examination and decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 396298 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Capital asset; Capital Gains; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 54B; 2(14)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Shri Shailesh Baldevbhai Patel, 1 & 2, Ghanshyam Nivas, Nr. Sanskruti Bungalows, Motera, Ahmedabad-380005 [PAN : AFJPP 0887 J] (Appellant) Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR Revenue Represented: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 19-03-2025 Date of pronouncement : 26-05-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is restored back to the file of the Tribunal by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat vide its Judgment dated 27-02-2024 in Tax Appeal No. 767 of 2023 by observing as follows: “10. In rejoinder learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hemani invited attention of the Court details submitted by the appellant for Motera land being agricultural land and submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered additional ground which is common for both the land i.e. Motera land and Nardipur land however the Tribunal has decided only the nature of the land of situated at Nardipur and not decided the same about Motera land. IT(SS)A No: 151/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.(SS)A No. 151/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No Shri Shailesh Baldevbhai Patel vs. DCIT 2 11. In view of the above facts emerging from the record and on perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal, it appears that the Tribunal has not considered the nature of the land situated at Motera as to whether the same would be agricultural land as per the provision of section 2(14) of the Act or not. In such facts, we deem it fit to remand the matter of the appellant to the Tribunal to decide only the issue qua the nature of the land situated at Motera as to whether such land is an agricultural land as per the provision of section 2(14) of the Act or not? The appeal is accordingly disposed of.” 2. Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that the land in question at “Motera” was an “agricultural land” not falling within the ambit of “capital asset” as defined under section 2(14) of the Act was argued before Ld. CIT(A). However Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated whether it’s an agricultural land or not, but computed the capital gains on transfer of lands at Survey Nos. 197/1 and 198/1 is chargeable to Long Term Capital Gain. Similar is the case by the Ld. Assessing Officer, therefore requested to set aside the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer to decide whether the land situated at Motera was an “agricultural land” which would fall within the ambit of “capital asset” as defined u/s. 2(14) of the Act during the relevant period. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the materials available on record. Perusal of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order makes it clear by way of Additional Ground No. 1(a), the assessee claimed that “Ld. A.O. erred in not granting exemption u/s. 54B in respect of sale of land at Survey No. 197/1 and 198/1 when the amount in respect of the said land which was received before the Sale Deed and as per the MOU was towards sale of agricultural I.T.(SS)A No. 151/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No Shri Shailesh Baldevbhai Patel vs. DCIT 3 land at the time of receipt. Hence to that extent of such proceeds, the capital gain ought to have been considered as gain on sale of agricultural land”. However perusal of the appellate order makes it clear that Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated this additional ground raised by the assessee. In fact, if this correct fact of non- consideration of additional ground by CIT(A) ought to have been brought before Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, the Hon’ble High Court would have set aside the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). As this matter is setaside back to the file of this Tribunal, we are satisfied that this Additional Ground was not adjudicated either by the Ld. CIT(A) or by the Ld. A.O. Therefore in the interest of Principle of Natural Justice, we deem it fit to setaside the matter back to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to decide the issue on merits by giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass order in accordance with law. 4. In the result, the additional ground filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 26-05-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 26/05/2025 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) I.T.(SS)A No. 151/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No Shri Shailesh Baldevbhai Patel vs. DCIT 4 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद "