BALLU RATHI,PANIPAT vs. ITO WARD 1, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7308/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 September 2026AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the land sold did not qualify as a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act, thus deleting the long-term capital gains addition. The cash deposits were also deleted, inferring they represented the on-money component of the land sale.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold agricultural land with his brothers for Rs. 70,53,750. The lower authorities assessed undisclosed long-term capital gains of Rs. 13,62,361 and unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 7,36,563.

What were the issues?

Whether the agricultural land sold qualified as a capital asset, and the nature of the unexplained cash deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(14),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Adv (VC)
Hearing: 18.08.2026Pronounced: 18.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 7308/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ballu Rathi, Vs. Commissioner of Income VPO, Manana The, Ta(Appeals), Samalkha, Distt. Panipat, Addl/JCIT-1, Pune, Haryana- 132101 Maharashtra- 411001 PAN: ALCPR3287P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Satyam Aneja, Adv (VC) Department by Sh. Mangali Venkata Ramesh, Sr. DR Date of hearing 18.08.2026 Date of pronouncement 18.08.2026

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Addl/JCIT(A)- 1 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Pune’s order dated 08.12.2025 passed in DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1083383126(1), involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

ITA No. 7308/Del/2026

It emerges during the course of hearing that the 2. assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ respective assessment and lower appellate findings inter alia assessing him for undisclosed Long term capital gains amounting to Rs. 13,62,361/- as well as the alleged unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 7,36,563/- in his hands. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved.

3.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee and the Revenue’s vehement submissions reiterating their respective stands against and in support of the impugned twin additions. The assessee had admittedly sold the land in question situated at the Revenue Estate of Village Samalkha, District Panipat, Haryana, along with his three brothers for Rs. 70,53,750/- which has been treated as a capital asset in both the lower proceedings without even remotely indicating that the same qualifies the relevant statutory condition(s) u/s 2(14) of the Act. I, therefore, see no merit in the impugned long

2 | P a g e

ITA No. 7308/Del/2026

term capital gains made in the assessee’s hands to the tune of Rs. 13,62,361/- which is hereby deleted in very terms therefore.

4.

The outcome of the above cash deposits addition amounting to Rs. 7,36,536/- would be hardly any difference. I hereby quote Rele Smt. Malini Ramnath vs. ITO (1994) 49 ITD 43(MUM) (Third Member) that the necessary inference made in such case would arise in the assessee’s favour is that these cash deposits represent the alleged on-money component in the case of agricultural land. Deleted in very terms therefore.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.08.2026.

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 07.09.2026 Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi 3 | P a g e

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 →