RAMESH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1), DELHI, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad, Judicial Member & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member

ITA No. 6969/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Ramesh Gupta, Vs ACIT, C-40, Gulmohar Park, Circle-7(1), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110049 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAHPG1821G Assessee by: Ms. Meenal Goyal, CA & Ms. Tanya Upreti, Adv. Revenue by: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 21.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 15.05.2026 ORDER Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member: The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 20.09.2025, passed by CIT(A)/NFAC u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2016-17.

2 ITA No. 6969/Del/2025 Ramesh Gupta rendering the decision perverse vide CIT v. Virgin Securities and Credits P. Ltd, (2011) 332ITR 396 (Del). 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not calling for remand report as per prescribed procedure laid down under Rule 46A(3) of the Rules, thereby grossly violating the principles of natural justice vide DCIT (Exemptions), Vijayawada v. M/s. Sri Saraswathi Educational Society, ITA Nos. 87 & 288/Viz/2018 (dated 30.04.2024). 4. That the Ld. CIT(A)/ AO failed to appreciate the submissions and documentary evidences filed by the Appellant vide response dated 25.10.2018 disclosing vital facts, and the hence, same are liable to be set aside vide Aphv India Investco. Private Limited v. ACIT, 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 813. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the exempt income derived by the Appellant was primarily on account of transfer of rights in rural agricultural land and hence agricultural income, being exempt in terms of Section 10(1) of the Act. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law, in ignoring the Declaration Letter dated 06.03.2019 issued by the Tehsildar notifying the Appellant's land qualifies as rural agricultural land (situated over 8 km from any Municipal bodies) and therefore proceeds from sale of said land are exempt income in terms of Section 2(14) r.w.s 10(1) of the Act vide CIT vs. Lal Singh 228 CTR 575 (Punjab & Haryana) and CIT vs. K. Kumaran [2025] 173 taxmann.com 838 (Madras). 7. That the CIT(A)/ AO erred in facts and circumstances in doubting the existence of a valid transfer merely because Agreement to Sale is placed on record, disregarding the direct evidence of conduct of parties/factum of payment/acknowledgment thereof vide Anbhao Parkash vs. ITO, [2025] 176 taxmann.com 374 (Amritsar - Trib.). 8. That the Ld. CIT(A)/ AO failed to appreciate that payments for purchase of agricultural land were made through banking channels as demonstrated via Agreement to sell dated 09.10.2014, hence existence of said transactions ought not to be doubted without contrary evidence on record vide Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Pnc Infratech Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 499 and Smt. Kundan Singh v. ACIT, Central Cirlce-25, Delhi, ITA.No.2061/Del./2015 (dated 29.04.2019).” 3. Brief facts are that the assessee filed his return for A.Y. 2016-17 on 01.08.2016 declaring income of Rs.24,12,390/-. The case was selected for scrutiny to verify the claim of large

3 ITA No. 6969/Del/2025 Ramesh Gupta exempt income. In response to notices issued by the ld. AO, the assessee simply filed a General Power of Attorney with regard to his properties in favour of Sh. Neeraj P. Maurya. No other supporting document such as sale deed etc. was filed. Therefore ld. AO completed the assessment at assessed income of Rs.1,86,30,097/- after disallowing the claim of exempt income from sale of agricultural land.

3.1 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee was dismissed by ld. CIT(A) as the claim of exempt income on a/c of sale of agricultural land by the assessee could not be established conclusively as no registered sale deed etc. was filed. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

4 ITA No. 6969/Del/2025 Ramesh Gupta