PRADEEP KUMAR YADAV,GURGAON, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 360/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 February 2026AY 2014-15Bench: BEFORESHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay on the developer's part should not result in the denial of the section 54 deduction to the assessee. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's section 54 deduction claim based on relevant case laws.

What were the facts?

The assessee is aggrieved by the denial of deduction under section 54 for Rs. 35,18,715/-. The Revenue argued that the buyer-developer agreement was dated 07.09.2010, which was beyond two years preceding the sale deed dated 20.06.2013. The assessee had paid the entire reinvestment between 2012 and 2014, but the government authorities granted permission to the builder only on 14.11.2017, culminating in the conveyance deed on 26.07.2021.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when there was a delay in conveyance deed due to the developer, despite timely reinvestment by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Gwal, C.A
For Respondent: DR (Through
Hearing: 11.02.2026Pronounced: 11.02.2026

ORDER This assesseee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078128541(1), dated 02.07.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities; action denying section 54 deduction to him to the tune of Rs. 35,18,715/- in assessment order dated 22.03.2022 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3.

The Revenue argue in this factual backdrop that given the fact that the assessee has been found to have executed corresponding buyers/agreement with the developer dated 07.09.2010 i.e. beyond specified buyer of two years preceding the date of his sale deed hearing dated 20.06.2013, his section 54 deduction claim has been rightly refused in both lower proceeding. I find no merit in the impugned disallowance made in both the lower proceedings. A perusal of the case like indicates that the even after the assessee had paid the entire reinvestment from 2012 to 2014, the concerned state government authorities granted permission to the builder only on 14.11.2017 finally culminating in the relevant conveyance deed in his favour on 26.07.2021. This tribunal is of the concerned view that all the foregoing delay on the developers part could not resulting denial of the assessed section 54 of the Act deduction going by (2024)

2 | P a g e 196 taxmann.com 618 (AHD) Kotari Sajnay Manilal vs. DCIT , CIT vs. Smt. R.S. Santa Kumari (2015) 60 taxmann.com 74 (Karnatka) and CIT vs. C.A. Sundaram vs, (2018) 407 ITR o1 (Madras) I accordingly accept the assessee’s section 54 deduction claim herein is very terms. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →