2025 (6) TMI 1764

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ght to have held that the long term asset being immovable property sold by the Appellant was agricultural land and not a capital asset chargeable to tax within the meaning of s. 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in holding that the agricultural land sold by the Appellant for a consideration of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (Rupees three crores) was amenable to long term capital gains. 3. Without prejudice to the foregoing and strictly in the alternative, the Impugned Order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre violates the principles of natural justice by failing to consider the submissions filed by the Appellant and fai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2,20,00,000/- regarding unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act and further directed to treat the above amount of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- as received against the sale of agricultural land and accordingly directed to calculate capital gain on the sale value of Rs. 3 crore. However, at the same time, he confirmed the addition of Rs. 16,78,378/- under the head long term capital gain. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is contradictory since at one hand he directs the Assessing Officer to recalculate the long term capital gain on the sale of impugned agricultural land and at the same time ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and requested to confirm the same. 7. We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book and case laws furnished and relied on by the assessee. In this regard, we find that it is the sole grievance of the assessee that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in not deciding the issue that the impugned land sold is a capital asset or not a capital asset. We find that it was the contention of Ld. AR of the assessee that the impugned land sold, was an agricultural land, duly supported by Revenue records wherein the same land was recognised as being cultivated agricultural land, secondly the assessee is con....