AMARJEET SINGH ,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), GHAZIABAD

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM, This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 31.03.2018 of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, New Delhi, in Appeal No.215/2016-17/GHZ, arising out of order passed u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Income Tax Officer, ward 1(5), Ghaziabad, pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. That on the facts and in law and under the circumstances, the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeal)-2, Noida erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer to treat the agriculture land as capital asset thereby making an addition of Rs. 7,55,000/- to the income of the appellant. The addition made and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeal), Ghaziabad is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and in law and under the circumstances, the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeal)-2, Noida camp at Ghaziabad erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer to make addition of Rs. 54,08,000/- (48,00,000 + 5,08,000 = 53,08,000/- but wrongly adopted at Rs. 54,08,000/-) in respect of the flat bearing number II-C/17, Vaishali, Ghaziabad purchased on 08.02.2011. The addition of Rs. 54,08,000/- made to the income of the appellant and confirmed by the CIT(A), Noida is without applying judicious mind and is based on surmises, conjectures being illegal and bad in law. 3. At the time of hearing, the ld. Authorized Representative has pointed out about the addition ground raised by the assessee and the same is reproduced below:- “Ground: That the Reassessment proceedings initiated by the Ld. A0 for A.Y. 2012-2013 are without juri iction and thus liable to be set aside. Ground: That the addition under Section 69 of the Act made in respect of the property bearing IIC/17 is not maintainable and is liable to be set aside as admittedly the said investment pertains to the previous AY having been made on 08.02.2011.” 4. The Ld. AR submitted that this additional ground goes to the root of the assumption of juri iction, which is vitiated without application of mind, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 of the Act. Although, the ld. DR opposed the additional ground, however, we find that on admitted facts that the ground can be decided and accordingly the legal ground is admitted. 5. The assessee is an agriculturist having agricultural land around Muradnagar and filed his return of income on 30.12.2012 declaring income of Rs.1,78,130/- and thereafter notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on the basis that there was a sale of agricultural land of Rs.50,73,000/- while stamp duty was paid on the value of Rs.58,35,000/-. All the claim of the assessee was the land in question is not a capital asset. Going through the copies of reasons for issuance notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 18.12.2014, we find that on these facts alone the assessment was reopened and it was mentioned in the reopening that the assessee has not disclosed this transaction in his ITR for the said AY 2012- 13 and has not paid capital gains on this transfer. The case of the assessee is that during the year under consideration, the assessee along with co-owners had sold agricultural land situated at Village Jalalabad, Tehsil Ghaziabad for a sum of Rs.50,73,000/- but the state authorities for the purpose of levy of stamp duty had valued the same at Rs.58,35,000/-. The assessee is the owner of 1/3rd share and accordingly for the purpose of computation of capital gains, the Assessing Officer worked out the sale consideration at Rs.19,45,000/- and then worked out the capital gain at Rs.7,55,500/-. The assessee claims that the land is situated beyond 8 km from Municipal limit of municipality is certified by Tehsil of Muradnagar and Assessing Officer found it correct in the remand report dated 28.03.2018 as reproduced by the ld. CIT(A). It is coming up that the ld. CIT(A) has disturbed this report of revenue officer on the basis of google map. Now, admittedly, section 2(14) when read with relevant notifications of the Central Government dated 6th February, 1973 and 6th January 1994, agricultural land situated in India are not capital asset and once the revenue authorities certified the land to be agricultural land on the basis of distance, it is not justified for tax authorities to draw inference on the basis of some other material which has no scientific basis. Especially, when agricultural land is situated outside municipal limit of Muradnagar which is not notified in municipality, then with regard to addition of Rs.54,08,000/- u/s 69 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has found it is actually correct that property 11C/17, which was sold by the assessee for a sum of Rs.65 lakhs on 02nd August, 2011 was purchased by assessee on 8th February, 2011 and the same is also established by copy of purchase deed available at page no. 20 of the paper book. Thus, the purchase of the property on 01.08.2011 falls in AY 2011-12 and not in AY 2012-13. Thus, for the present assessment year, there could have no addition, Thus, we are inclined to sustain the grounds and accordingly the appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26th September, 2025. [AMITABH SHUKLA] [ANUBHAV SHARMA]
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 26.09.2025
f{x~{tÜ
f{x~{tÜ
f{x~{tÜ
f{x~{tÜ