RAMVIR YADAV,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD- 3(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2857/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 January 2026AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the entire case back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to verify whether the assessee was engaged in agricultural activities on the land sold in the two assessment years immediately preceding the year of sale. The AO is to decide the issue in accordance with law after this verification. The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to possess evidence, such as Girdwari, which could not be filed before the lower authorities earlier, to prove agricultural activities. This decision addresses the primary ground of appeal concerning the disallowance of deduction under section 54B. The other grounds of appeal, including additions to returned income, reduction of loss, initiation of proceedings under section 270A, and charging of interest under sections 234B and 234D, are implicitly covered by the remand, as their determination depends on the outcome of the section 54B issue.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ramvir Yadav, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) dated 07.04.2025. The CIT(A) had confirmed the assessment order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2022-23. The assessee had declared a total income of INR 27,53,370/-. The AO disallowed the deduction claimed under section 54B of the Act on the sale of agricultural land, stating that the assessee failed to provide evidence of agricultural activity for two years preceding the sale. The AO computed the capital gains as INR 6,53,86,582/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 54B of the Act for the purchase of agricultural lands, thereby determining taxable income at Rs.6,81,39,950/- against the returned income of Rs.27,53,370/-. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the AO failed to appreciate that the land sold was agricultural land. While evidence of agricultural activity for the two preceding years could not be filed before the lower authorities, the assessee possessed such evidence (e.g., Girdwari) which could prove agricultural activities. The assessee sought to establish the use of the land for agricultural purposes. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the AO and as confirmed by the CIT(A), contended that the assessee failed to file any supporting documents to substantiate the claim of agricultural activity carried out for a period of two years immediately preceding the assessment year in which the land was sold. This failure led to the disallowance of the deduction under section 54B.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54B,Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 270A,Section 234B,Section 234D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri K.Sampath, Adv. &, Shri V.Rajkumar, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.DR
Hearing: 19.11.2025Pronounced: 16.01.2026

Year : 2022-23] Ramvir Yadav vs ITO B-16, Suncity Ward-3(1) Sector-54, Gurgaon-122101. Gurgaon PAN-AHFPR0963H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by Shri K.Sampath, Adv. & Shri V.Rajkumar, Adv. Revenue by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 ORDER

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :

1.

The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 07.04.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. NFAC/2021-22/10328465 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated 20.03.2024 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2022-23.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 07.07.2022, declaring total income at INR 27,53,370/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the reasons that the assessee has claimed benefit of deduction u/s 54B of the Act. During the year under appeal, the assessee has sold agricultural land for INR 9,23,31,249/- which was purchased in financial year 2010-11 for INR 97,02,150/-. After claiming indexed cost of acquisition, the capital gains were declared of INR 7,39,14,593/- and against the said capital gain, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act being invested in purchase of another agricultural land for INR 8 crores. The AO held that the agricultural land sold by the assessee, was not agricultural land as the assessee has failed to file any supporting documents to substantiate the claim of agricultural activity carried out for a period of two years immediately preceding the assessment year in which the land is sold. Accordingly, the AO has disallowed the deduction u/s 54B of the Act, computed the capital gains of INR 6,53,86,582/- as Long Term Capital gain (“LTCG”) in the hands of the assessee.

3.

Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 07.04.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the action of the AO.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:-

“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) at NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming following action of the Assessment unit- A. determining taxable income at Rs.6,81,39,950/- against the correct returned income Rs.27,53,370/-: B. making the following additions to the returned income i. Rs. 7,39,28,830/- by not allowing deduction claimed u/s 548 of the Act for the purchase of agriculture lands; ii. reducing the loss suffered under long term capital gain to Rs. 10,807/-: C. initiating proceedings u/s 270A of the Act D. charging interest u/s 2348 and D of the Act. The above actions being arbitrary, fallacious, unwarranted and illegal must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief.”

5.

Heard the contentions of both parties and perused the material available on record. Regarding LTCG from the sale of plot and further claim of deduction claimed u/s 54B of the Act against the sale of agricultural land, Ld.AR submits that AO has failed to appreciate that the plot of land was purchased by the assessee for a sum of INR 3,70,25,000/- jointly with his father where the assessee’s share was 50% and accordingly, the LTCG was declared. Further, the assessee has sold agricultural land for INR 9,23,31,249/- and purchased another agricultural land. The claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 54B was denied for the reason that no evidence was field by the assessee regarding use of the land for agricultural purposes for immediately two preceding years from the assessment year in which the sale was made. Before us, Ld.AR submits that assessee is having evidences which could not be filed before the lower authorities earlier such as Girdwari etc. to prove that he was carrying out agricultural activities over the said land in two assessment year immediately preceding the assessment year of sale of land. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded back the entire case to the file of AO for making verification of the fact whether the assessee was having any agricultural activities on the land sold in the two immediately preceding assessment years and decide the issue in accordance with law. With these directions, all grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 54B

All 814 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →