HARJEET SINGH,RAMPUR vs. ITO, RAMPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3762/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 July 2026AY 2020-20213 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to establish that the agricultural land in question was a capital asset as defined in the Act. Therefore, the addition made under section 56(2)(x) was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased land, and the addition was made based on the difference between the purchase price and the stamp value. The lower authorities added Rs. 31.84 lakhs under section 56(2)(x) of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the agricultural land purchased by the assessee qualifies as a capital asset for the purpose of section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(x),Section 2(14),Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 01.06.2026Pronounced: 01.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3762/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Harjeet Singh Vs. I.T.O., Vill. Khoundalpur Bilaspur, Rampur Rampur UP 244921 PAN: IMLPS 1393R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by None Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 01.06.2026 Date of pronouncement 01.06.2026 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1085979404(1), dated 13.02.2026 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No. 3762/Del/2026

2.

Learned departmental representative vehemently submits during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities’ respective assessment and the lower appellate findings under challenge have rightly added the sum in question of Rs. 31.84 lakhs u/s 56(2)(x) which represents the difference between actual purchase and stamp value of the alleged capital asset/land in issue. 3. This being the case, the tribunal sought to know as to whether the agricultural lands forming subject matter of the impugned addition herein form a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act or not. It is made clear that such a land has to be mandatorily a capital assets as stipulated in section 56(2)(x) r.w.s Explanation (b) adopting the statutory definition thereof as given in clause (d) of the Explanation to clause (7) of the very provision. A perusal of both the lower authorities’ respective assessment and the lower appellate findings make it clear that there is no such indication therein having satisfied as land in question forming a capital asset. This tribunal therefore finds merit in the assessee’s sole ground to delete the impugned addition made in his hands in very terms.

2 | P a g e

ITA No. 3762/Del/2026

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01.06.2026

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 17.07.2026 GP/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 56(2)(x)

All 565 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(x) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →