DHARAM PAP SAINI,DELHI vs. PRCIT, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1043/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 December 2023AY 2012-13Bench: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the sale consideration of the impugned land is exigible to capital gains tax. Therefore, the order of the Principal CIT invoking Section 263 was found to be correct and no interference was warranted.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold an urban agricultural land, which is a capital asset, but treated it as non-taxable agricultural land. The Principal CIT invoked Section 263, finding the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

What were the issues?

Whether the Principal CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 and whether the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue regarding the taxability of capital gains on sale of urban agricultural land.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

Hearing: 07/12/2023Pronounced: 07/12/2023

BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dharam Pal Saini Vs. Pr. CIT S/o Deep Chand, Gali Faridabad No.8A, 71 Khajuri Khas, Delhi-110090 PAN No.CMCPS1704F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Jitender Wadhwa, CA Respondent by Sh. T. James Singson, CIT DR Date of hearing: 07/12/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 07/12/2023 ORDER

PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A), Faridabad dated 20.03.2022 framed u/s. 263 of the Act.

2.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act and further erred in holding that the assessment order dated 11.12.2019 is not only erroneous but also pre judicial to the interest of the revenue.

3.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the year under consideration the assessee has sold an agricultural land which was an urban agricultural land and a capital asset as per relevant provisions of the Act but the same was treated as agricultural land not exgible to capital gains tax.

4.

Assuming jurisdiction conferred upon by the provisions of section 263 of the Act the Pr. CIT issued notice to the assessee asking to show cause why the impugned assessment order should not be treated as erroneous and pre judicial to the interest of the revenue.

5.

During the course of the proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act the assessee accepted that properties are in question is a capital asset under the IT Act. On such concession and finding that the impugned asset was a capital asset assessment was set aside by the Pr. CIT.

6.

We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the Pr. CIT, Faridabad. After hearing the Counsel we are of the considered view that the sale consideration of impugned land is exigible to capital gains tax as per relevant provisions of the Act and, therefore, we do not find any error or infirmity in the order of the Pr. CIT dated 20.03.2022 and decline to interfere.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

8.

Decision announced in the open court on 07.12.2023.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →