Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which disallowed a Section 54B deduction and added long-term capital gains. The lower authorities held that the agriculture lands sold were not reinvested in the name of the assessee's wife, citing a precedent.
Held
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument in principle that the lands sold were not capital assets. The Assessing Officer was directed to conduct fresh factual verification regarding the long-term capital gains.
Key Issues
Whether the agriculture lands sold were capital assets and if the assessee was eligible for Section 54B deduction on reinvestment.
Sections Cited
143(3), 54B, 2(14)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
Date of hearing 02.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 02.07.2025 ORDER
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.
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.