SH. KARAMVIR,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

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.

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.

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.