JAGAT SINGH,KHURJA vs. ITO, WARD 3(2), BULANDSHAHR

ITA 7428/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 March 2026AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), MRS. RENU JAUHRI, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)7 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's explanation was bonafide. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh consideration, as the valuation report was received after the assessment order, and directed the assessee to cooperate.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order related to long-term capital gains on the sale of ancestral agricultural land. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated it as an industrial plot and computed capital gains, but the assessee argued it was agricultural land and the AO did not apply its mind properly. A valuation report was received after the assessment order was passed.

What were the issues?

Whether the ancestral agricultural land sold by the assessee is a capital asset, and the tax treatment of the sale in the computation of long-term capital gains.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 2(14),Section 50C,Section 16A,Section 54F,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, HON’BLE JUDICIAL & MRS. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Goyal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT (DR)
Hearing: 09.03.2026Pronounced: 09.03.2026

PER RENU JAUHRI :

The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 28.12.2023, passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, “Act”) for A.Y. 2009-10. The assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer [for short, ‘AO’] u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act vide order dated 10.11.2016. 7428_DEL_2025_ Jagat Singh

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal which are reproduced as below: “1) That tax assessed at Rs. 26,15,674/- is highly objectionable. The Ld. AO could not justify an addition of Rs. 59,21,568/-towards the long-term c

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 →