AKRAM ,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(1), BULANDSHAHR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4668/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 August 2025AY 2012-13Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the land sold was a capital asset needed to be adjudicated afresh. The addition on account of household expenditure withdrawal was deleted, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an order concerning the sale of a capital asset resulting in long-term capital gains of Rs. 11,48,333/-, and a household expenditure withdrawal of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The assessment was framed ex-parte under Section 144.

What were the issues?

Whether the land sold by the assessee qualifies as a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. Deletion of addition on account of household expenditure withdrawal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 2(14),Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 26.08.2025Pronounced: 26.08.2025

Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Akram, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 31, Wazidpur Khurja, Ward-2(3)(1), Bulandshahr, U.P.-203131 Bulandshahr, U.P. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BWBPA9399C Assessee by: Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-5, Mumbai’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1066194528(1) dated 28.06.2024, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the learned Assessing Officer had held the assessee who have sold/transferred a capital asset in the relevant financial year giving rise to long term capital gains addition of Rs.11,48,333/- followed by household expenditure withdrawal addition of Rs.2,00,000/-, in assessment order dated 18.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Akram 4. It is in this factual backdrop that both the parties reiterate their respective stands. The first and foremost issue which arises the tribunal’s attention herein is as to whether the assessee’s land sold forms a capital asset or not u/s 2(14) of the Act. There would be hardly any dispute that the assessment herein which has been framed ex-parte u/s 144 and there is no categorical finding to this effect in the lower appellate discussion as well. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A) for it’s afresh adjudication as per law subject to a rider that he shall plead and prove all the relevant facts at his own risk and responsibility within three effective opportunities, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

5.

So far as the second issue of Rs.2,00,000/- is concerned, the tribunal hereby quote Smt. Malini Ramnath Rele vs. ITO (1994) 49 ITD 43(MUM) (TM) that the necessary inference in such an instance would be involvement some cash sale consideration which could form source of the impugned household expenditure. The same stands deleted. It is made clear before parting that the cost of acquisition already granted to the assessee shall not be disturbed in consequential proceedings.

More judgments on Section 2(14)

All 1,130 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(14) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →