RAMVIR YADAV,GURGAON V. ITO WARD- 3(1), DELHI

ITA 2857/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ramvir Yadav, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, which confirmed the AO's decision disallowing a deduction under section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The deduction was claimed against the capital gains from the sale of agricultural land, which the AO and CIT(A) found not to be agricultural land as the assessee failed to provide evidence of agricultural activity in the two years preceding the sale. The Tribunal heard the appeal, considered the new evidence presented by the assessee, and decided to remand the case back to the AO for further verification.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 828706 (ITAT-NEW DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Delhi
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: K. SAMPATH; V. RAJKUMAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 54B

Judgement Text

"ITA No.2857/Del/2025 Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2857/Del/2025 [Assessment Year : 2022-23] Ramvir Yadav B-16, Suncity Sector-54, Gurgaon-122101. PAN-AHFPR0963H vs ITO Ward-3(1) Gurgaon APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by Shri K.Sampath, Adv. & Shri V.Rajkumar, Adv. Revenue by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 07.04.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. NFAC/2021-22/10328465 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated 20.03.2024 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 07.07.2022, declaring total income at INR 27,53,370/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the reasons that the assessee has claimed benefit of deduction u/s 54B of the Act. During the year under appeal, the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2857/Del/2025 Page | 2 assessee has sold agricultural land for INR 9,23,31,249/- which was purchased in financial year 2010-11 for INR 97,02,150/-. After claiming indexed cost of acquisition, the capital gains were declared of INR 7,39,14,593/- and against the said capital gain, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act being invested in purchase of another agricultural land for INR 8 crores. The AO held that the agricultural land sold by the assessee, was not agricultural land as the assessee has failed to file any supporting documents to substantiate the claim of agricultural activity carried out for a period of two years immediately preceding the assessment year in which the land is sold. Accordingly, the AO has disallowed the deduction u/s 54B of the Act, computed the capital gains of INR 6,53,86,582/- as Long Term Capital gain (“LTCG”) in the hands of the assessee. 3. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 07.04.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) at NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming following action of the Assessment unit- A. determining taxable income at Rs.6,81,39,950/- against the correct returned income Rs.27,53,370/-: B. making the following additions to the returned income i. Rs. 7,39,28,830/- by not allowing deduction claimed u/s 548 of the Act for the purchase of agriculture lands; Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2857/Del/2025 Page | 3 ii. reducing the loss suffered under long term capital gain to Rs. 10,807/-: C. initiating proceedings u/s 270A of the Act D. charging interest u/s 2348 and D of the Act. The above actions being arbitrary, fallacious, unwarranted and illegal must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief.” 5. Heard the contentions of both parties and perused the material available on record. Regarding LTCG from the sale of plot and further claim of deduction claimed u/s 54B of the Act against the sale of agricultural land, Ld.AR submits that AO has failed to appreciate that the plot of land was purchased by the assessee for a sum of INR 3,70,25,000/- jointly with his father where the assessee’s share was 50% and accordingly, the LTCG was declared. Further, the assessee has sold agricultural land for INR 9,23,31,249/- and purchased another agricultural land. The claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 54B was denied for the reason that no evidence was field by the assessee regarding use of the land for agricultural purposes for immediately two preceding years from the assessment year in which the sale was made. Before us, Ld.AR submits that assessee is having evidences which could not be filed before the lower authorities earlier such as Girdwari etc. to prove that he was carrying out agricultural activities over the said land in two assessment year immediately preceding the assessment year of sale of land. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded back the entire case to the file of AO for making verification of the fact whether the assessee was having any agricultural activities on the land sold in the two immediately preceding assessment years and decide the issue in accordance with law. With these directions, all grounds of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2857/Del/2025 Page | 4 appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16.01.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR U.S) JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 16.01.2026 *Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S* (MANISH AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT 6. Guard File ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "