VIKRAM SINGH,ETAWAH vs. WARD 2(2)(5), ETAWAH, CIVIL LINES, ETAWAH

ITA 429/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 September 2026AY 2019-2012 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vikram Singh, filed his return for AY 2019-20 on 07.10.2019, declaring an income of Rs. 6,98,350/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case under Section 147, having information that the assessee sold a property for Rs. 9,00,000/-, while its stamp duty value was Rs. 15,73,000/-. The assessee had purchased the plot on 24.03.2009 for Rs. 14,400/- and sold it on 22.06.2018. The AO determined the capital gains based on the stamp duty value of Rs. 15,73,000/-, resulting in a taxable long-term capital gain of Rs. 6,72,569/- after considering exemptions. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), claiming exemption under Section 54F for purchasing a new residential flat for Rs. 55,00,000/- on 09.02.2021. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, noting the investment was made 7 months and 18 days beyond the two-year period from the plot sale date (22.06.2018).

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of exemption under Section 54F. The primary issue was the delay of 7 months and 18 days in purchasing the new residential flat. The Tribunal took judicial notice of the COVID-19 pandemic and its peak period, coinciding with the delayed investment. It referred to the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022, which excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for the purpose of limitation in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. Since the delay fell within this excluded period, it was condoned. The Tribunal reiterated that Section 54F is a beneficial provision to be interpreted liberally in favour of the assessee. The delay, caused by circumstances beyond the assessee's control (medical condition and pandemic), should not defeat the claim for exemption, especially when the investment was ultimately made. Therefore, the assessee was held entitled to the claim of deduction under Section 54F. The appeal was allowed on this ground. The stay application was dismissed as infructuous.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of exemption claimed under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 6,72,569/-, despite the assessee investing the entire net sale consideration in a new residential property? 2. Whether the delay of 7 months and 18 days in making the investment was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, such as a severe medical condition and the COVID-19 pandemic, warranting a liberal interpretation of Section 54F? Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee fulfilled the substantive conditions for exemption under Section 54F by investing the entire net sale consideration. - The delay was caused by severe medical issues (asthma, allergic illness) and the COVID-19 pandemic, constituting a reasonable cause. - Medical evidence and supporting documents establishing the assessee's incapacitation were ignored by the CIT(A). - A hyper-technical approach was adopted by the CIT(A) in strictly applying the time limit, disregarding the principle of liberal interpretation for beneficial provisions. - The intention to invest was bona fide, evidenced by depositing sale consideration in the Capital Gains Account Scheme. - Judicial precedents supporting liberal interpretation for delays beyond the assessee's control were not followed. - The claim under Section 54F was duly raised during appellate proceedings, with all facts and evidence placed on record. - Procedural requirements should not defeat substantive rights, especially in extraordinary situations like the COVID-19 pandemic. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions for the revenue, other than its role as the respondent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F,Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 250,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (DB

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Gupta, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR)
Hearing: 21.07.2026Pronounced: 28.09.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

SA 5/Agr/2026
ITA No.429/Agr/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M.

The aforesaid stay application No. 05/Agr/2026 is related with ITA No. 429/Agr/2026, hence, both the matters are decided by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts of ITA No. 429/Agr/2026 are only being narrated as under:

2.

This appeal is directed against

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 54F

All 2,609 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →