SH. KARAMVIR,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMANAssessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Karamvir, C/o-Kunal Aggarwal & Associates, 226, JMD Megapolis, 2nd Floor, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Gurgaon PAN: AEMPV4835Q (Appellant)
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Gurgaon’s order dated 02.02.2017 passed in case no.
100/17-16, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Assessee by Sh. Rajat Chaudhary, Adv.
Department by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Date of hearing
02.07.2025
Date of pronouncement
02.07.2025
2 | P a g e
It transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have disallowed the assessee’s section 54B deduction. Both the learned lower authorities have added long-term capital gains in the assessee’s hands amounting to Rs.1,07,50,047/- after holding him to have sold/transferred his agriculture lands in the relevant previous year and further rejected his consequential section 54B deduction claim on the ground that it was a reinvestment in the name of his wife going by CIT Vs. Dinesh Verma (2015) 233 Taxmann 409 (P&H); in the course of assessment framed on 30th March, 2015 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action on the foregoing twin grounds.
3. Learned counsel at the outset invites our attention to the assessee’s paper-book filed on 20th June, 2025 comprising of 19
pages, inter alia, compiling the Tehsildar report dated 14.09.2017
and 04.07.2019 as well as various assessment orders, all dated
11.12.2019 passed in his three brothers’ S/sh. Om Prakash, Roop
Singh and Jugvir Singh cases thereby not treating the very land as capital asset under section 2(14) of the Act.
3 | P a g e
Faced with this situation, the Revenue raises a technical objection that all this amounts to the assessee’s additional evidence which deserves to be restored back to the Assessing Officer for its afresh factual verification. It is in light of these facts that although the assessee has made out a case of his lands sold as not a capital asset(s) so as to give rise to the long-term capital gains, we accept his instant argument in principle and direct the learned Assessing Officer to carry out his fresh factual verification as per law. The assessee succeeds in his first and foremost substantive ground challenging assessment of long-term capital gains amounting to Rs.1,07,50,047/- in principle; and therefore, his latter substantive ground seeking section 54B deduction (supra) stands rendered infructuous. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd July, 2025 (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 2nd July, 2025. RK/-