BABU KHAN,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BIKANER

PDF · subscribers
ITA 151/JODH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 August 2026AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in reopening the assessment and making an addition for long-term capital gain when the assessee failed to provide the cost of acquisition. The AO's action was based on information received regarding undisclosed capital gains.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment was reopened under Section 147 as he allegedly did not disclose capital gains from land sale. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted the sale of 91.5 Bighas of land for Rs. 25,00,000/- and sought to ascertain the cost of acquisition, which the assessee could not furnish.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid and whether the addition on account of long-term capital gain was justified in the absence of the assessee furnishing the cost of acquisition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

For Appellant: Shri Shafi Mohammad Chouhan
For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, Addl. CIT-DR (Physical)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 151/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year – 2010-11) Babu Khan Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3) Purani Masjid Ke Pass, Bikaner Pajabgiron ka Mohalla, Bikaner- 334001 PAN No. EIMPK 8649 M Assessee by Shri Shafi Mohammad Chouhan, Advocate (Virtual) Revenue by Ms. Nidhi Nair, Addl. CIT-DR (Physical) Date of Hearing 05 / 08 / 2026. Date of Pronouncement 07 / 08 / 2026. ORDER PER: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, V.P.: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 11.01.2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2010-11.

2.

The dispute in the present appeal is confined to addition of an amount of Rs. 6,46,018/- on account of long term capital gain.

3.

Brielfy the facts are, the assessee, since deceased, was a resident individual and is represented in the present appeal through his legal heir. For the assessment year under dispute, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment

2 ITA No. 151/Jodh/2024 Asst. Year: 2010-11 u/s 147 of the Act upon receiving information that the assessee has not disclosed the capital gain arising on sale of land. As per the information available with the Assessing Officer, in the year under consideration the assessee had sold his land bearing Khasra No. 18M, 19M, 20M and 21M at Bikaner measuring 91.5 Bighas for a consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/-. While computing the long term capital gain, the Assessing Officer wanted to ascertain the cost of acquisition of land sold by the assessee as the assessee was unable to furnish any material. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued a letter to the Sub-Registrar, Bikaner to obtain the cost of land as on 01.04.1981 in response, the sub-registrar, Bikaner through letter dated 08.02.2016, provided DLC rate as on 30.10.1991 for three different categories. The first category, on road Rs. 40,000/- per bigha, second category away from road was Rs. 20,000/- per bigha and the residual category of land Rs. 10,000/- per bigha. Adopting the cost for the residual category of Rs. 10,000/- per bigha, the Assessing Officer allowed the cost of acquisition at Rs. 9,15,000/- and determined assessee’s share in the long term capital gain at Rs. 6,46,018/-. This amount was added back to the income of the assessee. The addition so made was confirmed by the first appellate authority. Before us, Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has arbitrarily adopted the rate

3 ITA No. 151/Jodh/2024 Asst. Year: 2010-11 of third category i.e. residuary category of Rs. 10,000/- per bigha. Whereas, assessee’s land falls in the second category, hence the rate would be Rs. 20,000/- per bigha. In support of such contention Ld. Counsel drew our attention to the copy of the sale deed dated 17.06.2009 placed in the paper book.

4.

Whereas Ld. Departmental representative relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and Ld. First Appellate Authority.

5.

Having considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. We find that as per details mentioned in the sale deed, copy of which is placed in the paper book, assessee’s land as per the category wise bifurcation made by the sub- registrar falls in the second category. Therefore, the cost of acquisition has to be computed by applying rate of Rs. 20,000/- per bigha. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow deduction towards indexed cost of acquision by applying the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per bigha and compute the capital gain accordingly.

4 ITA No. 151/Jodh/2024 Asst. Year: 2010-11 6. In the result, appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07/08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Dated : 07/08/2026. Nimisha, Sr. PS True Copy Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →