IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORESHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.9442/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 Hem Chand Income Tax Officer, 47, VPO Daulatpur Ward-45(4), South West, Daulatpur, Vs. Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan New Delhi E-2, Civic Centre, PAN: BCKPC4914Q J L Nehru Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellantby Sh. Sanjay Agarwal, CA Ms. Apoorva Bhardwaj, CA Respondent by Sh. Surender Pal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 22/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement 22/01/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM The appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year (hereinafter, the ‘AY’) 2014-15 is directed against the order dated 04.10.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, New Delhi [hereinafter, the ‘CIT(A)’].

2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: -

“1. That the Id. AO is not justified in expanding the scope of limited scrutiny. That the huge additions other than CASS subject matter made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained in absence of previous approval of the administrative Commissioner as directed by the Board's instruction in respect of "CASS" assessment. Therefore, the assessment order was passed in violation of Board's instructions, which is binding upon the A.O., is certainly bad in law and void ab-initio, may please be quashed and addition may please be deleted.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) and the ld. AO has erred in law while not appreciating that the assessee is deemed owner of the property which were purchased out of sale proceeds of agriculture land. That the ld. Authorities have overlooked through a transaction in order to determine form of the transaction rather than substance of transaction. That the case of the assessee is squarely covered u/s 53A of the Transfer of Property Act as the required payment for purchase was made by the assessee only. That the assessee is deemed owner of invested property as per section 64(1)(vi) of the I.T. Act, as complete consideration was paid by the assessee for purchase of property in the name of the son's wife. Therefore, the assets should be treated as owned by the assessee and thus, should get the benefit of deduction. As such the addition of Rs.13,31,48,600/- may please be deleted.

3. Without prejudice to above ground of appeals, the Id. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the disallowance of exemption U/s.54B and 54F of the Income Tax Act in holding that the assessee is not entitled to the deduction as the investment was made in the name of the son or daughter in law of the assessee. That the assessee disclosed the income from sale of agriculture land as agriculture income whereas the Ld. AO changed the nomenclature of the income as capital gain and still did not provide the relevant exemption as per law. That neither the ld. AO nor the ld. CIT(A) appreciated that the intention of the assessee to make the investment in the name of his legal heirs, considering the age factor. That the object of the provision to Section 54B and 54F is to promote investment and that the assessee has complied with that condition as beneficial owner of the assets. As such, the Id. AO may please be directed to allow the exemption provided in Section 54B and 54F of the Income Tax Act and the addition of Rs.13,31,48,600/- may please be deleted.

4. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts while upholding the addition made by the Id. AO amounting to Rs. 13,31,48,600/- on account of Long term Capital Gain (i.e. LTCG) without considering the fact that the asset sold by the assessee is rural agriculture land, which is not a capital asset as defined under section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as such the income earned on the sale of such land is non- taxable income. That there is no place in Income Tax Form to disclose such non-taxable income, therefore, to make the disclosure, the assessee disclose the same as agriculture income in the Income T