JOGINDER SINGH KASHYAP,JAMSHEDPUR, JHARKHAND vs. ITO WARD 2(1), JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR, JHARKHAND

ITA 28/RAN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi25 September 2026AY 2016-1727 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Regarding the claim for exemption under Section 54, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee received ownership of five separate residential flats, which contravened the amended Section 54(1) of the Act, disentitling the assessee from claiming exemption. The Tribunal agreed that non-fulfilment of statutory eligibility conditions ipso facto disqualifies the assessee. Consequently, the CIT(A) was right in confirming the AO's disallowance. On the cost of improvement claim of ₹20,26,744, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proof by not furnishing adequate vouchers, bills, and payment details. The Tribunal also found the decision in Ranjan Sen Jain Vs ITO to be based on facts and not legal aspects, thus not following it as a rule of consistency. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order and upheld it. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Joginder Singh Kashyap, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ranchi Bench, against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. The appeal was filed with a delay of 75 days, for which the assessee provided reasons including his advanced age and reliance on a previous tax consultant. The ITAT condoned the delay. The Assessing Officer (AO) had denied the deduction claimed under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to ₹1,25,72,800, and made an addition of ₹1,45,99,544. The assessee also claimed cost of improvement of ₹20,26,744, which was disallowed. The AO also levied interest under Section 234A.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not acknowledging that the show cause notice issued by the Ld. AO for disallowance under Section 54F was contradictory, given that exemption was claimed under Section 54 in the Return of Income? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961) 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not acknowledging that residential units received in a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) constitute a single residential unit, thus not violating Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 54) 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not acknowledging that the Appellant had submitted all details related to the cost of improvement of ₹20,26,744, warranting deletion of the addition? (Question of law and fact) 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not acknowledging that the addition of ₹1,45,99,544 and the corresponding tax demand of ₹34,05,460 were vague, baseless, and bad in law? (Question of law) 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not acknowledging that the Ld. AO incorrectly levied interest under Section 234A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law, concerning Section 234A) Assessee's contentions: The show cause notice was contradictory. Residential units from a JDA should be treated as a single unit for Section 54 exemption. Cost of improvement details were submitted. The addition and demand were vague. Interest under Section 234A was wrongly levied. Relied on Ranjan Sen Jain Vs ITO (2026) and Balwant Singh vs Jagdish Singh & Ors, Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy for condonation of delay. Revenue's contentions: The Ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54,Section 54F,Section 234A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY & SMT. RAJANI GUDURI

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Kumar Mittal, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Sandipan Khan, Sr.DR
Hearing: 03/09/2026Pronounced: 25/09/2026

PER: BENCH

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 18/08/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

"

1.

The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to further substantiate the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing with necessary documents, evidences, supporting, etc.

2.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not a

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 54

All 1,745 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →