AKRAM ,BULANDSHAHR V. ITO WARD 2(3)(1), BULANDSHAHR

ITA 4668/DEL/2025

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772623 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PRANAV YADAV
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains
• Section: 144; 2(14)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 4668/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Akram, H. No. 31, Wazidpur Khurja, Bulandshahr, U.P.-203131 Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(1), Bulandshahr, U.P. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BWBPA9399C Assessee by: Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-5, Mumbai’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1066194528(1) dated 28.06.2024, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that the learned Assessing Officer had held the assessee who have sold/transferred a capital asset in the relevant financial year giving rise to long term capital gains addition of Rs.11,48,333/- followed by household expenditure withdrawal addition of Rs.2,00,000/-, in assessment order dated 18.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4668/Del/2025 Akram 2 4. It is in this factual backdrop that both the parties reiterate their respective stands. The first and foremost issue which arises the tribunal’s attention herein is as to whether the assessee’s land sold forms a capital asset or not u/s 2(14) of the Act. There would be hardly any dispute that the assessment herein which has been framed ex-parte u/s 144 and there is no categorical finding to this effect in the lower appellate discussion as well. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A) for it’s afresh adjudication as per law subject to a rider that he shall plead and prove all the relevant facts at his own risk and responsibility within three effective opportunities, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. 5. So far as the second issue of Rs.2,00,000/- is concerned, the tribunal hereby quote Smt. Malini Ramnath Rele vs. ITO (1994) 49 ITD 43(MUM) (TM) that the necessary inference in such an instance would be involvement some cash sale consideration which could form source of the impugned household expenditure. The same stands deleted. It is made clear before parting that the cost of acquisition already granted to the assessee shall not be disturbed in consequential proceedings. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4668/Del/2025 Akram 3 6. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 26/08/2025. Sd/- (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 26/08/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Printed from counselvise.com "