PRAKASH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-43(3), NEW DELHI

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

Instant batch of three appeals pertain to the twin assesses, herein, S/sh. Prakash and Ram Dass. The above former assessee’s
Assessee by Sh. Ankit Kumar, Adv.
Sh. Sidhant Arora, CA
Department by Ms. Harpreet Karu Hansra, Sr. Dr
Date of hearing
20.03.2025
Date of pronouncement
20.03.2025

ITA No.212 & 213/Del/2020 & 2828/Del/2023
2 | P a g e appeal ITA No.212/Del/2020 is directed against CIT(A)-15, Delhi’s order dated 30.10.2019 passed in case no. 330/17-18, involving proceeding under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The latter assessee’s, namely, Sh. Ram Das, on the other hand, has filed his twin appeals ITA No. 213/Del/2020 and 2828/Del/2023 against CIT(A), Delhi’s and CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s orders dated 30.10.2019 and 04.03.2023 passed in case no 299/17-18
and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055713305(1), involving proceedings under section 143(3) and 271(1)(c) of the Act, respectively.

Heard both the assesses as well as the department. Case files perused.
2. It emerges during the course of hearing that there hardly arises much need for us to delve with the relevant factual matrix at length. This is for the precise reason that both these assesses happened to be sellers/vendors of their respective lands situated in the revenue estate of village Daulatpur, Tehsil Kapashera, New
Delhi in the relevant previous year involving varying sale considerations. And that the learned lower authorities are of the considered view that the said agricultural lands forming subject

ITA No.212 & 213/Del/2020 & 2828/Del/2023
3 | P a g e matter of sale/transfer(s) in the relevant previous or capital asset(s)/urban land giving rise to be the capital asset giving rise to the consequential long-term capital gains; against involving varying sums, respectively.
3. It is in this factual backdrop that the assessees’ case before us is that the lands in question had admittedly been treated as “agricultural” in the corresponding sale-deeds for the purpose of computing circle rates thereof. Learned counsel has further invited our attention to the fact that the state authority concerned i.e
Department of Urban and Development had issued it’s notification including the assessees’ village Daulatpur at serial no. 66 thereof
(pages 35 to 37 in the paper-book), dt. 16.05.2017 i.e. much after
FY 2014-15 before us.
4. The Revenue, on the other hand, placed strong reliance on both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings holding assessees’ as having derived long-term capital gains from sale/transfer of their respective lands.
5. We find no reason to sustain the learned lower authorities’
impugned action. This is for the precise reason that once the assessees’ village Daulatpur’s estate stood notified as “urban” area

ITA No.212 & 213/Del/2020 & 2828/Del/2023
4 | P a g e only in financial year 2017-18, the same could not be held to have covered the sale/transfer transactions executed way-back in the year 2014, with retrospective effect. We accordingly delete the impugned long-term capital gains in both these assessees’ case.
These assessees’
respective quantum appeals
ITA
Nos.
212/Del/2020 and 2013/Del/2020 succeed in very terms.

Same order to follow in the latter assessee’s appeal ITA
No.2828/Del/2023 since involving the consequential section 271(1)(c) penalty proceeding.
6. To sum up, these three assessees’ instant three appeals ITA
No. 212 & 213/Del/2020 & 2828/Del/2023 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20th March, 2025 (AMITABH SHUKLA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 20th March, 2025. RK/-