ARJUN SINGH,PALWAL vs. PCIT, FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5475/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 April 20264 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 found merit in the assessee's stand that the PCIT erred in assuming revision jurisdiction. The PCIT's direction regarding the total sale consideration of Rs. 9.50 crores and the assessment of long-term capital gains was not based on correct facts, as the land was agricultural and outside the definition of a capital asset.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the PCIT's revision order under section 263, which deemed the Assessing Officer's assessment erroneous. The PCIT questioned the consideration of only Rs. 1.29 crores in cash deposits instead of the total Rs. 9.50 crores and the subsequent assessment of long-term capital gains.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT correctly exercised revisionary powers under Section 263 regarding the total sale consideration and the assessment of long-term capital gains on agricultural land.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 2(14)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

For Appellant: CA Sh. Deepak Garg, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 25.03.2026Pronounced: 30.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5475/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sh. Arjun Singh, Vs. PCIT, H. No. 1014, Prithla, Faridabad Palwal, Haryana PAN: EICPS8476L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Charitra Gupta, CA Sh. Deepak Garg, CA Department by Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 25.03.2026 Date of pronouncement 30.04.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14 arises against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [in short, the “PCIT”], Faridabad’s order dated 17.03.2021 having DIN and order no. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2020-21/1031564514(1), 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.

ITA No.5475/Del/2025

2.

We notice during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against the learned PCIT’s section 263 revision directions terming the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 28.12.2018 as an erroneous one thereby causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue for the precise reason that the latter had considered only cash deposits of Rs.1.29 crores and its explanation than the total amount of Rs.9.50 crores as well as assessment thereof as longterm capital gains arising from transfer of a capital asset as defined in section 2(14) of the Act. It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee is aggrieved against section 263 revision directions. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s vehement submissions reiterating their respective stands against and in support of the learned PCIT’s section 263 revision directions herein. The first and foremost issue which arises for the tribunal’s apt adjudication therefrom is that of the assessee’s total sale consideration of Rs.9.50 crores as per the learned PCIT’s revision directions. We wish to make it clear that there is no dispute all along that the assessee had sold/transferred his agricultural lands on 11.03.2013 only for stamp value of

2 | P a g e

ITA No.5475/Del/2025

Rs.1.18 crores. That being the case, he first of all submits that this tribunal in his appeal ITA No.5095/Del/2025 decided on 17.02.2006 against the very assessment has settled the issue that he had received cheque amount of Rs.4.66 crores as well from the vendee concerned, Sh. Ram Niwas, s/o Tejrai. His stand therefore is that the total sale price herein comes to Rs.9.50 crores as alleged in the learned PCIT’s revision direction which is not found to be based on correct appreciation of the relevant facts. 4. Our attention is further invited to the assessee’s bank statement(s) at pages 15 to 20 of the paper-book inter alia indicating total credits of Rs.9,24,91,661/- which included KCC loan & interest have gone unrebutted from the departmental side. Faced with this situation, learned CIT/DR vehemently argues that apart from the assessee’s sale consideration amount, the PCIT has further directed the Assessing Officer to examine the assessment of long-term capital gains in the assessee hands. 5. It is at this stage that the assessee refers to paper-book pages 88 onwards in the CIT(A)/NFAC’s order, forming subject matter of challenge before the tribunal that he had filed revenue records as well as the necessary reports from the state government authorities

3 | P a g e

ITA No.5475/Del/2025

that the land in question was very well beyond the prescribed distance nowhere forming a capital asset under section 2(14) of the Act. We thus find merit in the assessee’s stand that the learned PCIT has erred in law and on facts in assuming his section 263 revision jurisdiction both on the former issue of total sale consideration amounting to Rs.9.5 crores as well as assessment of the consequential long-term capital gains; as the case may be, in the foregoing terms. The impugned revision direction stand reversed with all consequential benefits in the assessee’s favour therefore. 6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th April, 2026 Sd/- sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30th April, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

4 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →