TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1691
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led wherein it is stated that due to heavy workload in the office and long time pending matters, the AO could not file the appeal within stipulated time limit. It is thus, requested that since the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor willful and the circumstances are beyond the control of the AO thus, it is requested to condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication o merits. 3. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 4. Having considered the arguments of both the parties and after perusing the material available on records, we find that there is reasonable and sufficient cause with the AO for delay of 110 days in filing the appeal. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapses on the part of the litigant concerned however, that alone is not enough to turn down the plea of assessee and to shut the doors against him. When the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the Courts must give utmost consideration to such litigant and its right of hearing of appeal on merit o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the other hand, Ld. AR for the assessee submits that part of the said land was sold by the assessee during the year under appeal and remaining part of the land was sold in subsequent Assessment year wherein the matter of identical nature was travelled upto the Tribunal and the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide its order dated 21.07.2025 in ITA No.3080/Del/2024 for AY 2013-14 has held that the land uses of the said land since remained as agriculture and therefore, confirmed the capital gain declared by the assessee computed in the basis of circle rate of agriculture land. Ld. AR submits that land owned by the assessee was an urban agriculture land and though he has not carried out any agricultural activity however, as land use was never converted from agriculture to residential, therefore, the profit arising from the sale of said property was offered for tax as LTCG computed on the basis of the circle rate of agriculture land. Ld. AR therefore, prayed that the matter being identical with the issue involved in AY 2013-14 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has already taken a view that the subject land is an agricultural and capital gain declared by the assessee treating it as agricu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ivity ever having being done on the land as evidenced from the Giradwari report and the written inquiries made from DM (South) and ADM (Saket). The Ld. AO took the view that the provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act in respect of an agricultural land were not applicable to the assessee. The Ld. AO has also remarked that the said land being adjacent to posh colonies of South Delhi, the circle rate had to be calculated as per the information available in public domain i.e. the land had to be category 'F' Colony for measuring the circle rates. The long term capital gain of the appellant were adjusted accordingly and an addition of Rs. 3,48,30,000/- was made to the income of the assessee. The assessment order of the Ld. AO and the submissions made by the appellant have been considered. The Khasra Giradwari produced by the appellant reflects Nab Sarai as a Village in which agricultural land is situated. It is seen that the appellant had purchased the stated Urban Agricultural Land and subsequently sold the same without changing its land use. Further, as per the position of law, the character of the land does not change even if no agricultural activity is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not change. The fact that the assessee intended to use the land for industrial purpose or that the assessee did no carry out any agricultural operation did not in any way alter the nature and character of the land. Accordingly, High Court held that the amount received by the assessee was capital receipt, not liable to tax. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Mrs. Sakunthala Vedachalam V. Asst. CIT [2014] 369 ITR 558 wherein it was held that since the assessee produced a copy of Adangal and the letter from Tehsildar which showed that the land was agricultural in nature, the same has to be accepted as agricultural income. As per Adangal records, the land was classified as agricultural land and therefore, the exemption could not be denied to the assessee. The Hon'ble High Court has interalia averred that - ".............17. Yet other reason given by the Tribunal is that the adjacent lands are put to commercial use by way of plots and therefore, the very character of the lands of the assessee is doubted as agricultural in nature. The manner in which the adjacent lands are used by the owner therein is not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es and whether the provisions of section 50C is applicable on sale of such land. We find that the assessee has not claimed the said land as agricultural land exempt from being a capital asset u/s. 2(14)(iii) of the Act and has paid capital gain tax on it. The assessee has only claimed the said land as agricultural land for valuing the same at a lower circle rate of Rs. 50 lakh per acre. The AO, on the other hand, has held the same as a residential land, where agricultural activity has not taken place, and applied a higher circle rate of Rs. 38,640 per sq. mt. for valuation considering the said land falling under 'Category F' on account of the fact that it is located near posh locality of Sanik Farm, Delhi. 32. We find that the assessee's purchase and sale agreement of the said land depict the character of the land as agricultural land. The khasra girdawari produced by the assessee before the Assessing officer reflected Neb Sarai as village in which the said agricultural land is situated. We find that though the land is situated near a posh residential locality of Delhi, the authorities had not notified any change in the character of land i.e. from agriculture to residentia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....purchased from the assessee or the fact that such land was the subject matter of compulsory acquisition for use other than for agricultural purpose where the land was subject to acquisition for industrial use, it was held that it retained the character of agricultural land at the time of sale, so that there could be no liability. In this case, hon'ble Delhi High Court have held that when the assessee purchased the land, it was agricultural land. The award passed by the District Collector was a document which established beyond doubt that the land was agricultural land. Thus on the date of purchase, the land was agricultural and on the date of acquisition, the character of the land continued to be agricultural. Hence it was apparent that in the transitional period, the nature and character of the land did not change. The fact the assessee intended to use the land for industrial purpose or that the assessee not carry out any agricultural operation did not in any way alter the nature character of the land. Accordingly, High Court held that the amount received by the assessee was capital receipt, not liable to tax. For arriving at such conclusion, Delhi High Court has relied upon the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d.CIT(A) by accepting the contention of the assessee. Therefore, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 16. Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that amount was long outstanding and as the assessee has failed to file any confirmation thus the AO has made direct inquiry from the party wherein it has come to surface that the said firm, M/s. Ridhi International was dissolved in AY 2005-06 and no record for the year under appeal are available. Ld. Sr. DR submits that the said reply was filed in the year 2018 and if the claim of the assessee that payments were made by him in FY 2011-12, the same should have been accepted by the said party however, since the said party has clearly stated that no transactions were carried out with the assessee after the firm is dissolved, claim of the assessee cannot be accepted and AO has rightly treated the said amount as cessation of liability u/s. 41(1) of the Act which order of AO deserves to be uphold. 17. Per contra, Ld. AR submits that outstanding balance was subsequently repaid in FY 2011-12 wherein the payments were made to the said parties through payee account cheques and copy of the bank statements evidencing the payments are place....