##PAGE1##

6268_DEL_2025_Vikas Aggarwal vs ITO

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE-PRESIDENT

&

SMT. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 6268/DEL/2025; Assessment Year: 2014-15

Shri Vikas Agarwal Vs ITO

1, Akbarpur Mandi Samhal

Sambhal- 244302

Uttar Pradesh

(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

PAN No. ACGPY5244A

Assessee by : Shri Mohd. Saim, Advocate

Department/Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing: 12.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 12.01.2026

ORDER

PER RENU JAUHRI :

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner

of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi [for

short, Ld. CIT (A)/NFAC], u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (for short, the “Act”),

order dated 26.08.2025 in the Appeal No. CIT(A), NFAC/2013-14/10126979.

2. The assessee has raised following grounds of Appeal:

“1. That the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in applying Section

56(2)(vii)(b) to rural agricultural land which is excluded

from ‘capital asset’ u/s 2(14)(iii).

1 | Page

6268_DEL_2025_Vikas Aggarwal vs ITO

2. That the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not distinguish urban and

rural agricultural land; the land in question is agricultural

in revenue records and located outside notified municipal

limits; hence exempt u/s 2(14)(iii).

3. That the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC ought not to have upheld the

action of the Assessing Officer in as much as he has not

appreciated the facts of the case in its entirety and hence, the

impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer is bad in

”

law, illegal and unjustified.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file his return for A.Y.

2015-16. As per information available with the department, the assessee had

purchased an immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 11,00,000/- jointly

with another person during the year under consideration. The circle rate valuation

of the property was Rs. 1,88,98,000/-. Thus, total investment in the property

worked out at Rs. 24,46,020/- [purchase consideration of Rs. 11,00,000/- plus

stamp duty paid Rs. 13,23,500/-]. Assessee’s 1/3^rd share worked out to Rs.

8,15,340/-. As the investment of Rs. 8,15,340/- was unexplained since no return

had been filed and provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) were also applicable, a

notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2021. The assessee filed return on 28.05.2021,

declaring income of Rs. 4,96,270/- . While source of investment of Rs. 8,15,340/-

was verified and accepted during the course of assessment proceedings, Ld. AO,

however, invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) to make an addition of

Rs. 59,32,667/- to the returned income. Assessment was completed at total

income of Rs. 64,28,937/- vide order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B dated 30.03.2022.

2 | Page

6268_DEL_2025_Vikas Aggarwal vs ITO

3.1 Aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). After

considering the assessee’s submissions, Ld. CIT(A) rejected his contention that

provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) would not be applicable in the instant case as

agricultural land is not a capital asset. Instead, Ld. CIT(A) observed as under:

“6.3.4 The above provisions thus provides that where an individual

receives in any previous year, from any person or persons on or

after the 1st day of October, 2009 but before the 1st day of April,

2017, any immoveable property for a consideration which is less

than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding

fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property as

exceeds such consideration shall be income chargeable to tax under

the head "Income from other sources".

6.3.5 In the instant case, the appellant has purchased agricultural

land having 1.216 Hectares, Khasra No: 298 situated at Village

Begumpur, Dist: Sambhal jointly with Mohd Nadeem (2/3rd) &

Vikas Agarwal, the appellant ((1/3rd) from Ashok Rawal (Seller) on

24/02/2014. The sale consideration as per the sale deed amounts to

Rs 11,00,000 and the stamp duty value of such property as

determined by the Stamp duty author