Anish Vishnoi Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur)
In Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur, the assessee challenged the reassessment order for Assessment Year 2015–16, which arose from reopening under section 147 and resulted in additions on account of alleged long-term capital gains and “on-money” received from sale of land. The appeal was filed with a delay of five days, which the Tribunal condoned after accepting the affidavit and noting the absence of any mala fide intent, relying on settled judicial principles.
The assessee had sold three parcels of agricultural land during the relevant year. It was contended that all lands were rural agricultural lands situated beyond the prescribed municipal limits, with population below the statutory threshold, and therefore did not qualify as “capital assets” under section 2(14). Despite this, reassessment proceedings were initiated, alleging failure to disclose capital gains. The Assessing Officer proposed addition of long-term capital gains only in respect of land at Village Magarchaba, while accepting the remaining two lands as agricultural.
Before the first appellate authority, it was specifically recorded—on the basis of remand report, Patwari certificates, and distance verification through Google Maps—that the Magarchaba land was located 2.75 km from the municipal limits and was agricultural in nature. The Commissioner (Appeals) categorically held that the Assessing Officer’s allegation treating the land as a capital asset was incorrect, baseless, and invalid. The appellate authority further observed that the Assessing Officer had violated principles of natural justice by not supplying the material relied upon, not granting opportunity to rebut evidence, and by ignoring documentary evidence furnished by the assessee.
