Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
ORDER 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 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 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.
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
2 | 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.
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.
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.
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