PHOOL SINGH RAGHAV,GURGAON vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3556/DEL/2023Status: FixedITAT Delhi13 August 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), dismissing the assessee's appeal. The assessee failed to produce any evidence to contradict the findings that the land was not agricultural and was within the municipal limits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) who upheld an addition of Rs. 4,04,22,222/- on account of long-term capital gain. The addition was made by the AO on the grounds that the land sold was not agricultural land and was within the municipal corporation limit.

What were the issues?

Whether the land sold by the assessee is agricultural land and outside the municipal corporation limit, thus not subject to capital gains tax.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 31/07/2025Pronounced: 13/08/2025

Appellant Respondent PAN:DIRPS0092G Assessee by None Revenue by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 31/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 13/08/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 29/09/2023 for the Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

None appeared for the Assessee. Considering the issue involved in the present Appeal, we deem it fit to decide the Appeal on hearing the Ld. Department's Representative and perusing the material available on record.

3.

There is a delay of 10 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an application for condoning the delay contending that the Appeal could not be filed on time due to his ill health and old age.

For the reason stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 10 days in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned.

4.

Brief facts of the case are that, as Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r. w. Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) came to be passed on 06/12/2018 by making an addition of Rs. 4,04,22,222/- on account of Long Term Capita Gain. The Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 29/09/2023, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 29/09/2023, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

5.

The Ld. Department's Representative vehemently submitted that the Grounds of Appeal of the Assessee are devoid of merits which requires to be dismissed and by relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities, sought for dismissal of the appeal of the Assessee.

6.

We have heard the Ld. Department's Representative and perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the Appeal of the Assessee held as under:- “6. FINDINGS & DECISION 6.1 I have gone through the assessment order and submissions of the appellant. The Ld. AO has carried out additions to the tune of Rs. 4,04,22,222/- undisclosed capital gain. 6.2 It is noted from the assessment order that the Ld. AO has stated that the appellant had sold property at Village Bhada, Tehsil Manesar,

Gurugram to the tune of Rs. 4,05,22,222/- which is within municipal 8 Km from the end of Municipal Corporation limit of Gurugram. Therefore, the Ld. AO has treated this land as a Capital Assets. 6.3 The appellant has stated that the said land is agricultural land and in support of substantiate his claim, the appellant has submitted a copy of sale deed dated 14.02.2011 wherein it is mentioned about the said land is an agricultural land. 6.4 Further the appellant has furnished a copy of report prepared by HalkaPatwari and Tehsildar of Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon wherein Tehsildar has submitted that distance of the land from the end of the Municipal Corporation Gurgaon is 14.02 Km which was measured by Vision Engineering Consultant.

6.5 It is noted that Tehsildar of Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon has not measured the land distance from the end of the Municipal Corporation Gurgaon. He has only submitted report based on Vision Engineering Consultant report. Further it is noted from the Vision Engineering Consultant report dated 24.12.2018 that this report has not been signed by any authority. Therefore, this does not establish the genuiness to prove that the land is an agricultural land.

6.6 In view of the above, I am of the considerate view that the land sold by the appellant is not agricultural land and it is within municipal corporation limit. Therefore, the addition made by the Ld. AO is upheld. 6.7 Accordingly, the ground of the appeal is dismissed.”

7.

As could be seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the A.O. on the ground that the land sold by the Assessee is not agricultural land and it is within municipal corporation limit. The Assessee neither appeared nor produced any document to contradict the said findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the above facts and circumstances, we find no cogent reason to interfere with the findings and the conclusion of the Ld. CIT(A).

Accordingly, the appeal of the Assessee is hereby dismissed.

8.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →