THEKKEDATHU RAMAN PILLAI BALACHANDRAN,PACHALAM, KOCHI V. ITO, NON. CORP. WARD-1(1), KOCHI

ITA 634/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Thekkedathu Raman Pillai Balachandran, the appellant, who contested the order of the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2016-17. The primary dispute arose from the Income Tax Officer's (ITO) rejection of the appellant's claim of exempted long-term capital gain from the sale of agricultural land, which amounted to Rs.1,41,14,718. The ITO treated this amount as taxable long-term capital gain. The appellant's subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was unsuccessful as the specific ground regarding the nature of the property was not addressed. The tribunal found that the appellant was denied a fair opportunity to contest the nature of the property, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785139 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 08-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ARAVIND; ANIL D. NAIR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM ITA No. 634/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Thekkedathu Raman Pillai Balachandran .......... Appellant 408-E, 4th Floor, National Heritage Apts. SRM Road, Pachalam, Kochi 682012 [PAN: ADKPB9138P] vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri Aravind and Shri Anil D. Nair, Adv. Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 29.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 31.10.2025 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act’) for Assessment Year 2016-17, date of order 04/08/2025. The impugned order is emanated from the order of the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corp, Ward-1(1), Kochi (in short, ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, date of order 20/12/2018. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 634/Coch/2025 Thekkedathu Raman Pillai Balachandran 2. The brief fact of the case is that the assessee is a cost accountant by profession. The return was filed under section 139(1) by declaring total income Rs.5,90,930/-. The assessee declared income exempted from taxation for sum of Rs.1,43,51,307/- which is included the agricultural income of Rs.20,000/-, share of profit from partnership firm Rs.2,16,589/- and exempted long term capital gain amount to Rs.1,41,14,718/- against sale of agricultural land. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. The Ld. AO rejected the long-term capital gain on sale of agricultural property Rs.1,41,14,718/- and treated it as taxable long term capital gain. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A)passed a speaking order without considering the ground of the assessee related to sale of property in nature of agricultural land. The appeal of the assessee was rejected. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. The ld. AR argued and filed a paper book containing pages 1 to 223 which is kept in record. The ld. AR invited our attention at APB pages 139 & 156 related nature of property mentioned in sale deeds. The assessee has taken specific ground that ld. AO went wrong in relying on the report received from inspector attached to his office as also a report of the Village officer, without giving a copy of these documents to the appellant. The specific ground was not dealt by the ld. CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 634/Coch/2025 Thekkedathu Raman Pillai Balachandran 4. The ld. DR argued the matter but was unable to rebut the facts stated by the assessee. He, however, supported the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 5. We heard the rival submission & considered the documents available on records. Since the assessee was effectively denied the opportunity to adjudicate the nature of property before the revenue authority in support of its case. The reasonable opportunity was also denied for the assessee when the specific ground was taken during the appellate proceeding. We consider it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant documents and evidence before the ld. CIT(A), who shall consider the same in accordance with law and decide the matter afresh after granting the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case so as to avoid any prejudice to the proceeding before the appellate authority. The assessee is further directed to remain diligent and extend full cooperation in the set-aside proceedings to facilitate expeditious disposal of the appeals. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 634/Coch/2025 Thekkedathu Raman Pillai Balachandran 6. In the result, the appeal of assessee bearing ITA No. 634/Coch/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (ANIKESH BANERJEE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 31st October, 2025 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin Printed from counselvise.com "