RAM DAS,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 43(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2828/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 March 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)4 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 lands could not be considered urban at the time of sale as the notification came later. Therefore, the capital gains tax was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessees sold agricultural lands in village Daulatpur. The lower authorities treated these lands as urban, leading to capital gains tax. The village was notified as urban much after the sale transactions.

What were the issues?

Whether agricultural land sold before its notification as urban area can be treated as a capital asset for capital gains tax purposes.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Sidhant Arora, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Karu Hansra, Sr. Dr
Hearing: 20.03.2025Pronounced: 20.03.2025

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.

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

1.

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.

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

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →