TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mination at the end of the AO. It is evident from the records that the AO had not carried out any inquiry to verify the correctness of the contention that the land in question would not fall within the purview of capital asset. We therefore, set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of AO to decide it afresh. Needless to say that the AO would afford adequate opportunity to the assessee to prove his claim that the immovable properties that were sold by him during the year under consideration did not fall within the definition of capital asset as provided u/s 2(14) of the Act. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.5224/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 31-8-2022 - SHRI N.K.BILLAIY ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) . Subsequently, the information was received that the assessee had purchased certain immovable properties. Therefore, the case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act and a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 04.07.2016 to the assessee after obtaining the necessary approval from the Competent Authority. Thereafter, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and duly served upon the assessee. In response to the statutory notices, the Ld.AR of the assessee attended the proceedings and filed the requisite explanation on behalf of the assessee. However, the explanation offered by the assessee was not acceptable to the Assessing Officer [ AO ]. Therefore, the AO made addition of Rs.4,80,329/- being the Lon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there would not be application of section 2(14) of the Act and the land in question retained its character of being agriculture. 7. Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. 8. We have heard Ld. Authorized representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that before the lower authorities, the objection of the assessee was regarding the applicability of provisions of capital gain as the sale of land in question was claimed to be an agricultural land. It is further seen from the records that the AO has not carried out any inquiry to verify the claim of the assessee that the land in question was not capi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
