RAM MANOHAR KUMAR,DELHI V. ITO WARD-2(2), GHAZIABAD

ITA 145/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ram Manohar Kumar, a former Air Force soldier, who appealed against the assessment of long-term capital gains on the sale of land for the assessment year 2011-12. The land was reportedly agricultural and located outside the capital asset definition under Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AO initially assessed the capital gains based on incorrect assumptions about the assessee's share in the property and without considering the agricultural nature of the land. The Tribunal found that both lower authorities had passed their orders ex parte and decided to remand the case back to the AO for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 791134 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR ARORA
• Assessee Lawyers: K. R. MANJANI
• Keywords: Capital asset; Additional evidence; Fair market value; Cost of acquisition; Reopening of assessment; Capital Gains
• Section: 147; 144; 2(14)

Judgement Text

"Page | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 145/Del/2025 (Assessment Year:2011-12) Ram Manohar Kumar, C/o. K. R. Manjani, Adv, Add0-29, Basement, Lajpat Nagar-2, New Delhi Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AIOPK9764F Assessee by : Shri K. R. Manjani, Adv Shri Tarun Ashwani, Adv Revenue by: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date of pronouncement 10/12/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.145/Del/2025 for AY 2011-12, arises out of the order of the ld National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. NFAC’, in short] in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071458269(1) dated 23.12.2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 22.12.2016 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-2(2), Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the assessee would be liable to long term capital gains on sale of land in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It was submitted that the assessee was a soldier in Air Force and was Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 145/Del/2025 Ram Manohar Kumar Page | 2 posted in Nasik where he shifted in 2004. The residential address of the assessee was at Ghaziabad and the notices sent by the Income Tax Department were at Ghaziabad address which stood un-complied thereby resulting in framing of an ex parte assessment by the ld AO. There is no challenge to the validity of reopening of assessment for AY 2011-12 before us. Hence, we do not deal with the same. Based on the AIR information received by the AO, it was noticed that the assessee had sold immovable property for Rs. 4,25,25,000/- during the year under consideration and that share of the assessee was considered by the ld AO at 1/4th and long term capital gains worked out at Rs. 1,06,31,250/- in the assessment framed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 11.12.2018. In the said ex parte assessment, no deduction towards cost of acquisition was granted to the assessee for want of evidence. Before the ld CIT(A) in the statement of facts, the assessee pleaded in the statement of affairs that his share is 1/6 and not ¼. It was also pleaded that the land sold is outside the definition of capital asset in terms of Section 2(14) of the Act and accordingly, the assessee is not liable for capital gains tax at all. Further, there was no appearance before the ld CIT(A) which lead to dismissal of appeal of the assessee by the ld CIT(A). 4. Before us, the ld AR vide letter dated 07.01.2025 submitted that share of the assessee in the ancestral property was only 1/6th and that the land sold was agricultural land wherein, agricultural produce was cultivated. It was submitted that the land is situated at a distance of 12 to 15 kms from the boundary of Ghaziabad. The ld AR before us filed additional evidence including copy of Bhulekh, copy of khasra khatoni and calculation of fasli year from pages 1 to 7 of the Paper Book. It was submitted by him that these additional evidences are very crucial for adjudication of the issue in dispute as to whether subject mentioned land that was sold is a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act or not. It was also submitted that in any event the ld AO ought to have granted deduction for the cost of land by determining fair market value on 01.04.1981. This claim of deduction for cost of land was made on without prejudice basis by the ld AR. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 145/Del/2025 Ram Manohar Kumar Page | 3 5. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the instant case and considering the fact that orders of both the lower authorities were passed ex parte, in the interest of justice and fairplay, we deem it fit and appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of the ld AO for de novo adjudication in accordance with law qua the issue in dispute. The assessee is at liberty to furnish fresh evidences, if any, in support of his contention apart from the additional evidences submitted before this Tribunal. The ld AO is directed to consider all these evidences including the correct share of the assessee in the property sold and determine the capital gain tax liability, if any, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10/12/2025. -Sd/- -Sd/- (C. N. PRASAD) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 10/12/2025 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "