RAMPRAKASH PUROHIT,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(3)(5), JHANSI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 332/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 June 2026AY 2019-205 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that both revenue authorities ignored the assessee's bills for cost of improvement and admitted the valuation report as additional evidence. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh computation of capital gains after verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-filer, sold immovable properties for Rs. 22,11,000/- and declared a long-term capital gain of Rs. 36,020/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the cost of improvement bills and added Rs. 13,76,994/- to the total income.

What were the issues?

Whether the cost of improvement expenses incurred by the assessee for land development should be allowed while computing long-term capital gains. Whether the revenue authorities erred in not considering the assessee's bills and valuation report.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 147,Section 144B,Section 45,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma & Shri Manuj
For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 23.06.2026Pronounced: 23.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 332/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ramprakash Purohit Vs. ITO Ward 2(3)(5), Shankar Ji Mandir Ke Pass Bijroli, Nandanpuram Rash Vihar Jhansi-284135 Colony, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi- 284001 PAN : DBFPP1320F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajendra Sharma & Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv. Department by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 23.06.2026 Date of pronouncement 23.06.2026 ORDER

PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 17.02.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2018-19/10347125 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ NFAC(Delhi) (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2019-20, wherein ld CIT(A) has confirmed the additions made vide assessment order dated 19.03.2024.

ITA No.332/Agr/2026

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non filer. Department had an information that during the F.Y. 2018-19, assessee sold immovable properties to the tune of Rs. 22,11,000/-. The case was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2023. Assessee filed return of income on 18.04.2023 in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, declaring income of Rs. 36,020/- as long term capital gain. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee, seeking him to furnish required details. Assessee submitted that he sold 5 residential plots during the year under consideration and furnished the computation of capital gain in respect of 5 plots sold during the F.Y. 2018-19. Assessee further submitted that he earned capital gain from the sale of all 5 residential plots only to the extent of Rs. 36,020/-. Assessee also stated that the return was not filed as the income was below taxable limit. Assessee also submitted the sale deeds of all the properties sold during the year under consideration alongwith the copy of bank statement maintained with the Punjab National bank for the period from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019. The bills for the cost of improvement furnished by the assessee were not accepted by the assessing officer, stating that the bills were prepared only after the issuance of show cause notice and computed long term capital gain of Rs. 14,13,014/- after adjusting the offered income (L.T.C.G) of Rs. 36,020/-, the difference of Rs. 2 | P a g e

ITA No.332/Agr/2026

13,76,994/- was added in the total income of the assessee, vide assessment order dated 19.03.2024 passed u/s 147/144B of the Act. 3. Assessee preferred an appeal before ld CIT(A) who confirmed the additions made by the assessing officer. 4. Assessee has filed this second appeal on the following grounds: “1. That the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre dated 17.02.2026 is bad in law being passed not in accordance with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, liable to be set aside. 2. That while sustaining the addition, made by the AO, the NFAC has completely ignored that the AO has made the addition by not allowing of the expenses, incurred towards improvement, part of cost, are liable to be allowed, addition sustained on this score is liable to be deleted. 3. That the income computed by the AO under the Head long term capital gain without allowing of the investment made towards the development of the land, is against the provisions of Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, addition made on this score, sustained in appeal, is liable to be deleted. 4. That the authorities below without making of any enquiry OR without obtaining any technical report, ignoring the submissions made, has not allowed the deduction of the amount spent towards the improvements, making the addition on this score is not called for, same is liable to be deleted.” 5. We have perused the records. Heard ld representative for the appellant assessee and ld Sr DR for the respondent revenue. 6. The main point for determination under appeal is as to whether ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 13,76,994/- as long term capital gain on the sale of immovable property, ignoring the cost of improvement? 7. Learned representative for the assessee has submitted that neither the assessing officer nor the ld CIT(A) has made any endeavour to get 3 | P a g e

ITA No.332/Agr/2026

assessee’s bills, verified and have wrongly computed the long term capital gain without taking into consideration the bills related to the cost of improvement in respect of the development of land. Ld AR has further drawn the attention of the Bench that he has obtained the valuation report dated 14.05.2026 obtained from the registered valuer, which is at page 7 of assessee’s paper book. Further, submitting that the matter be restored to the assessing officer for verifying the genuineness of the bill and taking action upon the assessee’s valuation report for computing the long term capital gain 8. Ld DR supports the impugned order. 9. We notice that both the revenue authorities have outrightly ignored the bills submitted by the assessee to support the cost of improvement towards development of land in question. This apart, the appellant assessee seems to have filed valuation report prepared by the registered valuer for the first time before this tribunal as an additional evidence. In the interest of justice, we admit the additional evidences filed by the assessee and deem it just and appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of learned assessing officer, who will get the bills submitted by the assessee towards cost of improvement, verified and after taking action upon the valuation report submitted by the assessee shall compute the long term capital gain a fresh after taking all such additional evidences into 4 | P a g e

ITA No.332/Agr/2026

consideration. The aforesaid point is determined accordingly. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on - 23.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 24.06.2026 *Aamir, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

5 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →