2021 (1) TMI 34 - AT - Income Tax

Nature of land sold - capital asset or agricultural land - HELD THAT - We find that there was no representation of assessee before the assessing authority and before the CIT(A), the assessee pleaded that the land sold is agricultural land. However, the assessee has not produced any evidence before the CIT(A) to prove the exact nature of the agricultural land and also has not raised any objection as to why the sale consideration should not be adopted at ₹ 1,04,63,238/-. Since the assessee pleaded that proper opportunity was not given to the assessee and only in the interest of justice to give an opportunity to the assessee to furnish all the relevant material in support of her claim, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remand the issue to the file of AO for Denovo consideration in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee shall be given a fair opportunity of hearing and shall also be permitted to furnish relevant material to prove her case. Appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Issues:
1. Taxability of long-term capital gains on the sale of property.
2. Classification of the property sold as agricultural land.
3. Application of section 50C of the Income Tax Act for valuation of property.
4. Procedural fairness and opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the taxability of long-term capital gains arising from the sale of property by the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed discrepancies in the declared income and the actual sale value of the property. Despite notices and opportunities given to the assessee, no response or explanation was provided, leading the AO to calculate the long-term capital gains at a higher value based on market rates. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the AO's decision, which was then challenged in the Tribunal by the assessee.

2. The main contention raised by the assessee was that the property sold should be classified as agricultural land, thereby exempting it from capital gains tax. However, the CIT(A) rejected this argument based on the location of the property within the jurisdiction of a municipal corporation and its sale to a builder, indicating a commercial transaction rather than agricultural land sale. The Tribunal acknowledged the need for the assessee to provide evidence supporting the agricultural classification of the land and decided to remand the issue back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

3. Section 50C of the Income Tax Act was invoked by the AO for valuing the property at a higher rate than declared by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not contested this valuation effectively before the CIT(A) due to lack of representation and evidence. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the valuation process, giving the assessee a fair opportunity to present relevant material and objections.

4. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the right of the assessee to be heard and present evidence in their defense. Recognizing the lack of proper representation and evidence in the previous proceedings, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case to the AO for a fresh assessment. This decision aimed to ensure that the assessee would have a fair chance to substantiate their claims and objections with relevant material, in line with principles of natural justice.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, highlighting the significance of providing a fair opportunity for the assessee to present their case and evidence in tax assessment proceedings.

← Previous Next →