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

ITA 28/RAN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 September 2026AY 2016-1727 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

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 assessee had declared a total income of ₹3,51,350 and claimed a deduction/exemption of ₹1,25,72,800 under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case was selected for scrutiny to verify the correctness of the capital gains deduction. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the deduction under Section 54, and the CIT(A) upheld this decision. The assessee also disputed additions related to the cost of improvement and interest under Section 234A.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A). Regarding the Section 54 exemption, 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 the exemption. The Tribunal agreed that non-fulfillment of statutory eligibility conditions disqualifies an assessee from claiming tax benefits. Consequently, the AO's disallowance of Section 54 exemption was confirmed. Concerning the cost of improvement, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proof by not furnishing adequate vouchers, bills, and details of purchases and payments. Mere submission of self-generated or inadequately supported documents was deemed insufficient. The Tribunal distinguished the case of Ranjan Sen Jain v. ITO, stating its finding was based on facts, not legal aspects, and therefore not followed as a rule of consistency. Thus, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

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, as exemption was claimed under Section 54 in the Return of Income? (Question of law) 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 mixed law and fact) 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not acknowledging that the Appellant had submitted details related to the cost of improvement of ₹20,26,744, and thus this amount should be deleted? (Question of mixed law and fact) 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not acknowledging that the addition of ₹1,45,99,544 and corresponding tax demand of ₹34,05,460 raised by the Ld. AO is 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) Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the show cause notice was contradictory. They contended that residential units received under a JDA should be treated as a single composite residential unit for Section 54 exemption, citing Ranjan Sen Jain v. ITO. They also argued that the cost of improvement expenditure was duly submitted and should be allowed. The addition of ₹1,45,99,544 was claimed to be vague. For interest under Section 234A, they relied on CIT v. Ajay Prakash Verma and Smt. Tej Kumari, stating interest is chargeable on returned income, not assessed income. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, through 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 1,739 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →