INCOME TAX OFFICER, HISAR V. RAM SARUP, HISAR

ITA 863/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Learned CIT(A) which had deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding undisclosed income and capital gains tax for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee, Ram Sarup, had sold agricultural land and declared the income accordingly. The Assessing Officer had made additions based on discrepancies in the sale consideration reported and the amounts received through cheques and cash. The CIT(A) found that the additions were not justified, a decision which the Revenue challenged in the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had substantiated his claims with adequate evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822957 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Hira Lal Ram Dayal v. CIT, Delhi
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 32

Judgement Text

"1 ITA No. 863/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 863/DEL/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 ACIT, Hisar Circle, Hisar. Vs Ram Sarup, Gorakhpur Road, Agroha, Hisar-125047. PAN: BIQPS 7605 J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Ved Jain, Adv.; & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Adv. Department represented by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 12.11.2025 Date of pronouncement O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant Revenue’s appeal is directed against the order dated 18.12.2024 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/107133039(1), passed by the Learned CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, arising out of order dated 31.12.2015 of the ACIT, Hisar Circle, Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 863/Del/2025 Hisar, under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue’s are reproduced herein below : “i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT Appeal has erred in deleted the addition of its. 62,50,000/- because as per Registered Sales Deed assessee has sold 7834.75 Sq yards for a sales consideration of Rs. 8.00 Crores in which assessee sales consideration comes to Rs. 4,62,50,000/-whereas assessee has shown only Rs. 4,00,00,000/- ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT Appeal has failed to consider the fact that ther is no mention in sales deed that the assessee has not sold 1058.75 Sq. yard in the shape of plot. Moreover, the said allotment letter too issued in the next financial year i.e. on 20.09.2013. As such it is not acceptable that the assessce has not received the entire sale amount of the property. iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT Appeal has erred in deleted the addition of Rs.4,00,00,000/- because as per Registered sales deed dated 08.02.2013 the whole amount of Rs. 8,00,00,000/-was received by assessee in cash whereas on the other hand he has accepted that the sales consideration amount of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- received through Cheque No. 972441 clearing date 02.05.2012 in PNB account and Cheque No. 538976288 clearing date 30.03.2013 in SBI account. iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT Appeal has failed to consider the fact that assessee itself admitted that \" सािलम िव\u0007य धन नगद घर पर \u0010ा\u0011 हो चूका है \" (THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SALECONSIDERATION OF Rs. 08 CRORE HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN CASH AT HOME\" The Sub-registrar also has duly certified that both the sellers and purchasers have admitted before the Sub-registrar that the entire amount mentioned in the registration deed has duly received/ paid in cash on or before the date of registry. On the other hand assessee admitted that he has received payment through cheque which shows that assessee has received his part of payment amounting to Rs. 8,62,00,000/- (Rs. 4,00,00,000 through cheque and Rs. 4,62,50,000/-cash) from sales of land. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 863/Del/2025 v) The appellant craves leave to add or amend any grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard or disposed off. vi) It is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be cancelled and that of the Assessing Officer may be resorted.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee, a proprietor of Filling Station, filed his return for A.Y. 2013-14 declaring income of 1,72,25,630/- and agriculture income of 14,25,000/- which was processed u/s 143(1) at the returned income. Subsequently the case was selected under the Computer Assisted Scrutiny Scheme (CASS). The Learned AO finalized the scrutiny assessment at a total income of Rs. 6,35,13,742/- by adding Rs. 62,50,000/- for computation of capital gains tax; Rs. 4,00,00,000/- as undisclosed income under Section 69A; and Rs. 38,112/- by disallowing claim of depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. In appeal, the Learned First Appellate Authority deleted the addition of Rs. 4,62,50,000/-. Aggrieved against it the Revenue is in appeal before us. 3.1 From perusal of the registered deed and the computation of income of the assessee, It has been noticed that the assessee had sold agricultural land jointly with Smt. Sunita W/o Sumer Singh, measuring 22 Kanal 8 Marle to Shanti Niketan Cooprative Group Housing Society Ltd., Hisar for a total consideration of Rs.8,00,00,000/-. The assessee had paid the stamp duty on the sale consideration of Rs. 8,00,00,000/- as recorded in the registered sale-deed. In fact the land was measuring about 12 Kanal 19 Marlas equivalent to 7834.75 sq. yds. The Learned AO worked out the total consideration at Rs. 4,62,50,000/- and added in the hands of the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 863/Del/2025 4. The case of the assessee is this that 50% of the sale consideration i.e. Rs. 4,00,00,000/- was received by the assessee through banking channel evidence whereof is also available in the paper book filed before us. It was categorically argued by the assessee’s Senior Counsel Shri Ved Jain that no cash component was involved in this matter and the assessee declared long term capital gain in his return of income as also appearing at page 2 of the paper book. Further important fact that has drawn our attention is that out of the land measuring about 7834.75 sq. yds., the land measuring about 1078.75 sq. yds. could not be sold to the Society and the same was subsequently sold in A.Y. 2023-24 and the resultant capital gains thereof was duly offered to tax in the said assessment year. Corroborative evidence is also annexed to the paper book at pages 34-38 therein. On the basis of this peculiar fact it is the case of the assessee that the Learned AO has recorded wrong facts and without considering the documentary evidences placed on record wrongly made addition of Rs. 62,50,000/- being the difference between the computation of the sale consideration made by the Learned AO at Rs. 4,62,00,000/- and Rs. 4,00,00,000/- as received by the assessee, in fact, which is further mentioned in the registered sale deed. He has further relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hira Lal Ram Dayal v. CIT, Delhi 1979 (9) TMI 47 dated 10.09.1979, wherein it has been held that no capital gains tax shall be levied if the assessee proves with cogent evidence that no sale transaction took place. In this particular case the assessee had not sold the land measuring 1058.75 sq. yds. in the impugned Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 863/Del/2025 transaction rather to some other parties during A.Y. 2023-24 fact of which was duly brought to the notice of the Learned AO. 5. On the other hand the Learned DR relied on the order passed by the Learned AO. 6. Having regard to the fact that the land measuring about 1078.75 sq. yds. when not sold by the assessee in the year under consideration rather sold to some other party that too in A.Y. 2023-24, long term capital gain on this sale consideration cannot be added in the hands of the assessee. In our considered opinion the same ought to have been considered in its proper perspective and thus, no addition is sustainable under these facts and circumstances of the matter. The order passed by the Learned CIT(A) deleting the impugned addition is thus, found to be just and proper so as not to warrant any interference. Hence, this ground of appeal preferred by the Revenue fails. 7 The further ground of deletion of addition of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- on the count that the assessee received this amount in cash over and above the amount of cheque payment invoking the provisions of Section 69A of the Act has been challenged before us, whereas the sale-deed dated 8.2.2013 gives a different picture. The show cause that 50% of the total land being sold by the assessee i.e. land measuring about 7834.75 sq. yds. at Rs. 5903.18 per sq. ft. amounting to Rs. 4,62,50,000/- has been suppressed by the assessee is not sustainable. When the amount has been paid through cheque and the land measuring about 1058.75 has not been sold by the assessee during the year under consideration the addition on the premise of suppression of sale consideration by the Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 863/Del/2025 assessee to the tune of Rs. 62,50,000/- without any cogent evidence in the hands of the Revenue and further that the addition of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- under Section 69A of the Act is found to be erred in law and on fact and thus, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In that view of the matter the addition framed by the Ld. CIT(A) is found to be just and proper so as not to warrant interference. 8. Thus, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is devoid of any force and is dismissed accordingly. 9. In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 863/Del/2025 is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 22.12.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (M BALAGANESH) (Ms. MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 22.12.2025. *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "