Admission of additional grounds under the IT Act that there was a failure to raise these grounds due to inadvertence

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.: 3414/CHNY/2016
Assessment Year: 2008-09 

Shri S.A. Bhimaraja,
Flat No.A-1,
Whispering Heights,
130, St. Mary’s Road,
Alwarpet,
Chennai – 600 018.
PAN: AEFPB5660J
Appellant

vs.

The Income Tax Officer,
Non-Corporate Ward 16(2),
Chennai – 34.

Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri T. Banusekar, CA
Respondent by : Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT

Date of Hearing : 16.07.2021
Date of Pronouncement : 23.07.2021

O R D E R

Per G. MANJUNATHA, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai,dated 27.09.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2008-09.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 

1. For that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the law, facts and circumstances of the case to the extent prejudicial to the interest of the assessee and is opposed to the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play.

2. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction.

3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the reassessment was bad in law.

4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the assessment was not completed as per the directions of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.4,36,59,000/- as business income on sale of land.

6. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the impugned land was agricultural land within the meaning given in the exclusion under section 2(14)(a) of the Income Tax Act.

7. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant is not in the business of buying and selling of lands and that the appellant has bought lands only for investment purposes.

8. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in concluding the purchase and sale of the land as business activity and the resultant gain as business profits in the hands of the appellant.

9. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances under which the impugned land was sold by the appellant.

10.For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer has not considered the report of the inspector.

11.For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the land is treated as agricultural land in reve.nue records and that agricultural activity was carried on until the sale of
land.

12.For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the circumstances under which the impugned land was purchased from 100 people. 

To know more in details find the attachment file