Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 991 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 54F denied - premise that the land in question was not transferred within the stipulated period as provided u/s 54F - the agreement to sell would extinguish the rights in the property and fall under definition of the term 'transfer' u/s 2(47)(ii) - HELD THAT:- The Income Tax Act gives a precise definition to the term 'transfer'. Section 2(47)(ii) talks about extinguishment of rights. The Supreme Court, in Sanjeev Lal's case [2014 (7) TMI 99 - SUPREME COURT] , is very clear that an agreement to sell would extinguish the rights and the same would amount to transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47). We are of the opinion that the Appellate Tribunal was not right in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) denying the deduction u/s 54F on the premise that the land in question was not transferred within the stipulated period as provided u/s 54F Section 54F is a beneficial provision and is applicable to an assessee when the old capital asset is replaced by a new capital asset in the form of a residential house. Once an assessee falls within the ambit of a beneficial provision, then the said provision should be liberally interpreted. Deduction u/s 54B - land in question was non-agricultural and the exemption u/s 54B is available only to an agricultural land - HELD THAT:- Agreement to sell was invalid on account of breach of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, but it is a settled position of law that an invalid transaction would remain valid unless it is declared to be invalid by the competent authority under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act. It is axiomatic under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act that when permission is granted by the authorities concerned for sale of agricultural land to a non-agriculturist, the land does not cease to be an agricultural land merely because of such permission being granted. If the conditions of the permission are not complied with, the land in respect of which permission was granted u/s 63 would revert to its original character of agricultural land. On one hand, the Revenue authorities say that the agreement to sell was invalid as it was between an agriculturist and a non-agriculturist and such agreement could not have been executed in favour of the purchaser, being a non-agriculturist, without the permission of the competent authority. However, ultimately when the permission came to be granted by the authority despite such agreement to sell and when the assessee herein transferred the land, the Revenue authorities now say that the said land was non-agricultural and, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to claim exemption u/s 54B. As emphasized in the case of Manilal Somnath [1976 (3) TMI 41 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] mere granting of the permission u/s 63 does not alter the agricultural character of the land, and on that aspect of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has obviously erred in law. We are of the view that the second question with respect to Section 54B should be re-looked by the Tribunal in light of what has been observed by us, more particularly, the decisions referred to by us of this Court. - Tax Appeal is partly allowed.
|