VIJAY KUMAR MITTAL,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(2), UJJAIN

ITA 465/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 June 2026AY 2010-1114 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the "Impugned Assessment Order" passed under section 143(3)/147 dated 28.12.2017 was proper and correct in law. The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide any explanation or evidence regarding the agricultural use of the land for the two years immediately preceding the transfer. Consequently, the AO rightly concluded that the conditions for section 54B were not satisfied. The CIT(A) also correctly rejected the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not challenged the validity of the reopening before the CIT(A), rendering that ground not adjudicable. Regarding the co-owners' cases, the Tribunal found that in Santosh Agarwal's case, the CIT(A) had decided that the reopening itself was invalid, making the addition ground infructuous, and had not adjudicated on the merits of stamp duty valuation or section 54B applicability. In the present case, the assessee did not challenge the reopening. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof for agricultural use lay with the assessee, which was not discharged at any level, including before the ITAT. No substantial evidence of agriculture, such as prior germination, sales bills, or fertilizer use, was placed on record. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vijay Kumar Mittal, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. The assessee had sold agricultural land on March 21, 2010, for Rs. 45,00,000, while the stamp duty value was Rs. 62,73,000. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under section 147/148 and made an addition of Rs. 11,01,028, representing the assessee's share of long-term capital gain (LTCG), disallowing the claim for exemption under section 54B. The AO held that the land was not used for agricultural purposes for two years preceding the transfer, a condition for section 54B. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order. The assessee's original income return was Rs. 3,18,567, and the initial assessment under section 143(3) was Rs. 10,53,520.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reopening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad in law, given that the original assessment was framed after considering all documents? 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not considering the appeal decisions in the cases of other co-owners of the agricultural land? 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 11,01,028 by disallowing the claim for exemption under section 54B of the Act on long-term capital gain, without considering the detailed submissions? Assessee's Contentions: - The reopening of the assessment is bad in law. - The CIT(A) erred by not considering the appeal decisions in favor of other co-owners, Santosh Agarwal and Neeraj Harbhajanka, where additions were deleted. - The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 11,01,028 by disallowing the claim under section 54B, failing to consider detailed submissions and the fact that the addition should have been Rs. 4,41,125 instead of Rs. 11,04,028. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue sought an adjournment due to the non-availability of the Senior Departmental Representative, stating they would not argue the appeal as they were not prepared.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 253,Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 54B,Section 246A,Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT & SHRI PARESH M JOSHI

Hearing: 12.06.2026Pronounced: 30.06.2026

Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:

This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of vthe income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for sake of brevity] before this tribunal as and by way of a second appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing no: - ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1066305077(1) dated 01.07.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT (A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein after referred to as the “Impugned

order”. The Relevant Assessment year is 2010-11 and the VIJAY KUMAR MITTAL ITA No. 465/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2010-11 corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010. 2. Factual Matrix

2.

1 That as and by way of an Assessment order made u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act, the

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →