MANJEET KUMAR,SONEPAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SONEPAT

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1416/Del/2026, A.Y. 2020-21 Manjeet Kumar Vs. ITO C/o Umang Sahai Aggarwal Aaykar Bhawan, Flat 505 Sonepat, Maitri Apartments Sonipat Sector 09 Rohini Opposite Metro Pillar 411, Delhi �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: BPLPK1687Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Vaibhav Aggarwal, CA Respondent by : Shri Pramod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 07.08.2026

O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The appeal filed by the appellant/assessee is against order dated 24.12.2025 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 1416/Del/2026 Manjeet Kumar

30.01.2025 of Ld. Assessing Officer/ AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for A.Y. 2020-21.

2.1 Against order dated 30.01.2025 of ld. AO, the appellant/assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed the appeal vide order dated 24.12.2025.

“1. That the learned Authorities Below have erred in law and facts of the case in exparte framing assessment u/s 144/147, read with Section 148 of the IT Act at Rs.

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 1416/Del/2026 Manjeet Kumar

1,24,80,000/-, thereby making in unwarranted and excessive addition of Rs. 1,24,80,000/-, which is totally wrong, illegal and excessive in nature. 2. That the learned CIT (appeals) has erred in law and facts of the case in observing that the delay in filing of appeal is on the part of the appellant, and thereby not condoning the delay, although the appellant has separately submitted the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. Thus, the dismissal of the appeal based on a wrong observation is totally wrong and illegal. Which is evident that delay is not on part of Appellant. 3. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal and denying relief to the appellant, despite the appellant having specifically explained that the delay/default was caused due to serious health issues. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had duly submitted documentary evidences in support of his medical condition, which constituted a reasonable and sufficient cause, but the same were completely ignored without proper consideration. That the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in rejecting the appeal without judiciously considering the medical hardship and supporting documents is arbitrary, unjustified, and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. That since notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 07/04/2022 by jurisdictional AO instead of Faceless AO, as contemplated in the Notification issued by the Finance Ministry dated 29/03/2022, Thus Accordingly the impugned assessment order is not sustainable. That the Learned Assessing Officer has wrongly initiated and the CIT Appeal has wrongly confirmed proceedings us 147/148 of the IT Act, though there was no escapement of Income. 5. That the mandatory notice issued u/s 148 has not been properly served on the appellant, thus the proceeding initiated u/s 147/148 of the IT Act without proper service of notice is totally wrong, illegal and excessive in nature. Before initiating proceedings u/s 147/148 of the IT Act, no reasons have been recorded by the assessing officer properly, that income has escaped assessment. If verified properly, there will be no escapement of any Income. 6. That the Learned Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in treating the sale of agricultural land as taxable capital gains, ignoring the undisputed fact that the land sold by the appellant is agricultural land and does not fall within the definition of capital asset as per section 2(14) of the Income tax Act, 1961, and therefore the gain arising from sale thereof is exempt from tax. That the authorities below have failed to appreciate the factual and documentary evidence on record establishing that the land was agricultural in nature, used for agricultural purposes, and situated beyond the prescribed municipal limits, and thus the addition made is arbitrary, unjustified, and contrary to the provisions of law. The addition made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and liable to be

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 1416/Del/2026 Manjeet Kumar

deleted, as the impugned transaction relates to sale of agricultural land which is outside the scope of capital gains taxation. 7. That the approval given by higher authority is mechanical without application of independent mind. Thus, without any application of mind, the approval/sanction given is totally wrong, illegal and an incomplete violation of section 151 of the IT Act. 8. That before framing the Ex party assessment u/s 144/147 of the IT Act, no proper and reasonable opportunity hearing was afforded to the appellant, thereby violating the principle of natural justice, which is totally wrong and illegal. 9. That the authorities below have erred in law and facts of the case in not considering the facts properly that the appellant has sold agriculture land in village Salwan, Tehsil Balla, District 9 Karnal, for a sum of Rs. 1,24,80,000/ and has purchased a residential house for Rs. 75,00,000/ cost: Thus, it is self evident that the source of acquisition of property has duly been disclosed and explained. 10. That the authorities below have wrongly made an addition of Rs.1,24,80,000/ being gross Sale value without deducting the index cost of said agricultural land, which was purchased in the financial year 2011/12 for Rs.65,87,000. Thus, the calculation of Income is totally wrong and incorrect. That the case was reopened u/s 148 for the reasons to Explain source of acquisition of the residential house for Rs.75,00,000/ only, but the 10 authorities below have made addition of Gross sale consideration of Agricultural land and basic cost of Land for which it is purchased in F.Y 2011/12 for Rs.65,87,000/ has not been considered while completing the assessment. Thus, the addition made in the reassessment proceeding is totally wrong and illegal. That the appellant craves leave to add, DLEETE OR amend any ground OR grounds of appeal at the time OR before the time of hearing.” 4. Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning delay of 115 days in filing the appeal due to physical and mental illness, lack of communication of the assessment order and non-service of physical copy of assessment order. Copies of medical prescription slip of treatment were submitted. Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex parte order without considering the details submissions.

P a g e | 5 ITA No. 1416/Del/2026 Manjeet Kumar

P a g e | 6 ITA No. 1416/Del/2026 Manjeet Kumar

decision in accordance with law after affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant/assessee.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (RAMIT KOCHAR) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 07.08.2026 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI