Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Amar Portfolio Private Limited,Delhi vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Delhi on 18 March, 2026
ITA No.4575/Del/2025
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH "B"NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRISANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आ.अ.स/ं .I.T.A No.4575/Del/2025
िनधारणवष/Assessment Year: 2011-12
AMAR PORTFOLIO PRIVATE LIMITED बनाम INCOME TAX OFFICER,
402, Hemkunt House-6,Rajendra Vs. Ward 2(1),
Place,New Delhi 110008 New Delhi.
PAN No.AAACA6936G
अपीलाथ Appellant यथ /Respondent
Assessee by Shri Sanjay Gupta, CA andMs. Somya Khurana, Adv.
Revenue by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
सुनवाईक तारीख/ Date of hearing: 11.03.2026
उ ोषणाक तारीख/Pronouncement on 18.03.2026
आदेश /O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
1. This appeal arises from order dated 01.07.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as "the Act"), by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. In this case, the assessee declared "Nil" income after affecting sale of agricultural land. The said agricultural land was situated in Ghamroj Village, Sohna Tehsil, Gurgaon. The Ld. AO treated the said agricultural land as a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act and computed Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs.640,35,765/-.
1 ITA No.4575/Del/2025 1.1 The assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) with this addition, where also he could not succeed on the basis of findings, the relevant portion from which is extracted as under: -
"The Assessing Officer, on the basis of information available and non- compliance on part of the assessee, concluded that the assessee had sold Hand at Rs.3,75,30,000/- whereas the circle rate value of the same property was Rs.6,82,12,500/-, resulting in suppression of sale consideration to the extent of Rs.3,06,82,500/-. The assessee also claimed exemption of Rs.3,32,98,927/- which was disallowed in the absence of any documentary evidence. Accordingly, invoking section 50C, the Assessing Officer adopted the circle rate value as full value of consideration, allowed indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.41,76,735/-, and computed Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.6,40,35,765/- which was brought to tax: Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) were also separately initiated.
During the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the land sold was rural agricultural land and therefore not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. It was contended that agricultural operations were carried out on the land, as reflected in the return of income, and that the land was situated at a distance of more than 10 kilometers from the nearest municipality, based on Tehsildar's certificate. It was submitted that since the land was not a capital asset, the provisions of section 45 and section 50C would not apply. Copies of sale deeds and Tehsildar certificates were filed as additional evidences before the undersigned.
The above documents were not produced before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings despite multiple opportunities and even during remand proceedings the assessee remained non-compliant. The remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer categorically stated that the assessee had failed to establish that it was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence earlier and had also failed to avail opportunities given during remand. Therefore, in light of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, the additional evidence is inadmissible, and the same cannot be considered............"
1.2 Aggrieved with this action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds which challenge the findings given in the impugned order and also the fact that the evidence submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) under Rule 46A was not duly considered and agricultural land was treated as being taxable.
2 ITA No.4575/Del/2025
2. The Ld. AR argued with the help of a paper book. It was averred that there was a finding of fact available in another CIT(A) order in the case of Superfast Holdings Private Limited (AY 2011-12), order dated 26.09.2022. In the case of Superfast Holdings (supra) agricultural land is in the same village and the following is the finding of fact: -
"7.8 From the above discussion, following can be concluded, I. The land under consideration is situated in village Gamroj, District Sohna, Haryana.
II. Gamroj is a village having Panchayat and Head of the village is Sarpanch.
III. The land under consideration is 6.5 to 7 km from the Municipal limits of Sohna.
IV. As per Notification the limit for Sohna is 5 km."
It was also argued that all manner of evidences were submitted before the Ld. CIT(A), including extensive revenue records, to show that the impugned land qualifies as "agricultural". The Ld. AR took us through the annexure to the submission dated 09.02.2024 made before the Ld. CIT(A) and pointed out the certificates given by the Revenue Authorities, clearly proving that the said land was agricultural in nature. It was the further submission that while submitting the remand report to the Ld. CIT(A) the Ld. AO had stressed more on the non-submission of the documents before him instead of a fair appraisal of the documents filed under Rule 46A. 2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and pointed out that there was inadequate compliance before the authorities 3 ITA No.4575/Del/2025 below and at this stage it was not possible to say clearly whether the said land was agricultural or not.
3. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. It is seen that the assessee has submitted considerable documents in support of his claim that the said land is agricultural in nature and, therefore, exempt from any LTCG. We are also persuaded by the order of CIT(A) in the case of Superfast Holdings Private Limited (supra) in which land in the same village has been duly considered to be agricultural in nature. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it deserves to be held that the impugned land is in the nature of agricultural land and, therefore, there can be no LTCG on the same.
4. In the result, this appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.03.2026 Sd/- Sd/-
(CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (SANJAY AWASTHI)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 18.03.2026
*Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S.
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
4
ITA No.4575/Del/2025
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT, NEW DELHI
5