IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRISANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.स/ं .I.T.A No.4473/Del/2025 िनधा(cid:9)रणवष(cid:9)/Assessment Year:2017-18 INCOME TAX OFFICER, बनाम AMIRA APPARELS LTD.

Room No.375, Central Revenue Building, Vs. 1/16, East Patel Nagar, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi.

PAN No.AAACA2992A अपीलाथ(cid:20) Appellant (cid:22)(cid:23)यथ(cid:20)/Respondent Assessee by Shri Manjeet Singh, Sahani, CA Revenue by Shri Sabyasachi Roy, Sr. DR सुनवाईक(cid:8)तारीख/ Date of hearing: 15.12.2025 उ(cid:14)ोषणाक(cid:8)तारीख/Pronouncement on 19.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1. The present appeal arises from order, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), dated 30.05.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. In this case, it is seen that the assessee did not file any return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. The Ld. AO received certain information indicating that sometime deposits were purchased by the assessee and also some payments had been received in respect of transfer of immovable property. The facts in brief are that the assessee sold a property comprising of land and factory building for Rs.1,92,27,000/-. The assessee had claimed indexation benefit on the cost of acquisition from 31.03.1993. The Ld. AO has recorded that the assessee did not submit any document supporting the cost of acquisition or cost of improvement of the property. The Ld. AO has given a finding that the benefit of indexation cannot be allowed for any depreciable asset, being the factory building in this case. Thereafter, the Ld. AO considered only the cost of land as cost of acquisition and recomputed the capital gains. Furthermore, a second portion of the same plot of land was also sold as agricultural land but the Ld. AO is seen to have denied this claim on the ground that the assessee did not give any proof of agricultural activity being conducted on the said land. Thus, the facts that emerge are that the assessee sold two portions from a plot of land measuring 5 acres. The first portion comprising 1.51 acres also had a factory building on it and the second part comprising 3.49 acres was claimed to be agricultural land. Thereafter, the Ld. AO added long term capital gains at Rs.1,82,30,107/- for one parcel of land and Rs.1,04,55,911/- for the second parcel.

1.1 Aggrieved with this order, the assessee approached the ld. CIT(A) where he could succeed on both counts. Regarding the sale of 1.51 acres of land (with factory building), it has been mentioned in the impugned order that the said building was in a very bad shape and the land was also encroached. Also, the assessee could get part of this land converted to agricultural status (24.05.2016) and the portion which comprised of the factory building was termed as “residential land”. Thus, the Ld.CIT(A) is seen to have relied on the fact that at the time of sale the land was reconverted to agricultural status and the factory building was termed as “residential building”. Regarding the remaining portion the findings of Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be extracted for the sake of capturing the facts:

“In the present case, out of total 5 acres of agricultural land purchased by the appellant, on one portion of the land (1.51 acres), the appellant had constructed a factory building post the change in land use to "industrial" in the Revenue records vide order dated 22.02.1988 passed by the Assistant Collector, Kashipur. As explained herein before under ground no. 2, the appellant had defaulted in repayment of the loan taken from PICUP and as a consequence thereof the industrial unit and the land were taken over on 30.01.1993 and the business activity came to standstill. After prolonged litigation, the land and building were handed over to the appellant by PICUP on 11.01.2013 on “As is where is and whatever there is basis". Due to these events, the land and factory building ther