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 िनधा(cid:9)रणवष(cid:9)/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(cid:20) Appellant (cid:22)(cid:23)यथ(cid:20)/Respondent Assessee by Shri Sanjay Gupta, CA andMs. Somya Khurana, Adv.

Revenue by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR सुनवाईक(cid:8)तारीख/ Date of hearing: 11.03.2026 उ(cid:14)ोषणाक(cid:8)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/-.

1.1 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. 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 Sup