SARVJEET SINGH THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MANJIT KOUR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALWAR, ALWAR

ITA 355/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 October 2026AY 2013-146 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition made in the hands of the assessee on account of the alleged sale of land was based on an incorrect appreciation of facts. The assessee demonstrated, by presenting a purchase deed and referring to the AO's own report, that the transaction in question was a purchase of land and not a sale. The details in the AO's information and the purchase deed furnished by the assessee completely tallied, establishing that the assessee had purchased the property during the impugned year, not sold it. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 22,19,515 made on account of income earned by way of sale of land was held to be incorrect and was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal did not specifically address the grounds related to jurisdiction, natural justice, or interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, as the primary issue of the factual incorrectness of the addition was decisive.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sarvjeet Singh, through his legal heir Manjit Kour, filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated January 21, 2025. This order was passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, confirming additions and disallowances made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in an assessment order dated September 30, 2021, passed under Section 143(3) read with Sections 147 and 144. The AO had reopened the assessment based on information that the assessee had sold land for Rs. 18,50,000, with a stamp duty value of Rs. 22,19,515, leading to escaped income. The assessee had initially filed a return declaring income from business of a realtor on a presumptive basis under Section 44AD. The AO rejected this claim, treating the transaction as a sale of capital assets and added the DLC value of Rs. 22,19,515 to the assessee's income.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the additions and disallowances made in the assessment order dated September 30, 2021, are bad in law and on facts for want of jurisdiction and other reasons, and should be deleted (Section 143(3), 147, 144). 2. Whether the assessment framed under Section 144 was done without affording an adequate and reasonable opportunity and complying with mandatory statutory requirements, thus breaching natural justice and warranting quashing (Section 144). 3. Whether the action taken under Section 147 read with Section 148 is bad in law and without jurisdiction, rendering it void ab initio, and consequently, the assessment order should be quashed (Section 147, 148). 4. Whether the addition of Rs. 22,19,515 confirmed by the NFAC is contrary to law and facts and should be deleted (Section 250). 5. Whether interest charged under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C is legally tenable and should be deleted. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the authorities below failed to appreciate that the assessee had purchased, not sold, land for the value of Rs. 18,50,000 (DLC value Rs. 22,19,515). The information relied upon by the AO, as per a report submitted to the Tribunal, pertained to the purchase of land, not a sale. The assessee submitted a purchase deed showing the transaction as a purchase by Sarvjeet Singh from Harish Kumar on February 10, 2013, for Rs. 18,50,000, with a DLC value of Rs. 22,19,515 for Plot No. 387, Scheme No. 2, Lajpat Nagar, Alwar. Therefore, the addition was factually incorrect. Revenue's Contentions: The Ld. DR was unable to controvert the factual contention of the assessee that the information available with the AO related to a purchase and not a sale.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 250,Section 44AD,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR

Hearing: 23.07.2026Pronounced: 16.10.2026

Per Annapurna Gupta, AM:- The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

P a g e | 2 Sarvjeet Singh Through L/H Manjit Kour (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 21.01.2025 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.

The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:-

1.

The impugned additions and disallowances made in the order u/s 143(3r.w.s 147 r.w.s 144 dated 30.09.2021 are bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of ju

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 →