Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 983 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 54B - sale of agriculture land - sale conditions were such that post-dated cheques were received by assessee - HELD THAT:- The contention of the DR is not acceptable on the ground that the amount of capital gain can be invested in purchase of land only on receipt of the sale consideration and the intention of the legislature is that the amount of sale consideration should not be utilized otherwise other than purchase of agriculture land and in the instant case the assessee has invested the wholesale consideration in purchase of another agriculture land within two days which is clear from the bank statement of the assessee. The period of six month or condition of investment prior to the filing of ROI is applicable only in the cases where sale consideration has been received before filing of ROI. When the sales consideration itself was received after filing of ROI then the case law relied upon by the AR is squarely applicable in the instant case. Specially the case of CIT Vs Jagriti Aggarwal [2011 (10) TMI 279 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held. That the assessee is entitle to claim benefit u/s 54, if the investment was made in purchase of new assets or deposit in account before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment whichever is earlier under sub-s. (4) of s. 139. Contention of the ld CIT-DR that the second proviso to section 54E is also relevant, But this is not a case of compulsory acquisition where second proviso to section 54E is applicable similarly the provisions of section 54 and 54B are pari materia, but the provision of section 54E / 54EC are not pari materia with 54B / 54F. We found that the case law cited by the learned AR in the case of Chanchal Kumar Sircar Vs ITO [2012 (2) TMI 363 - ITAT KOLKATA] is applicable because of the circumstances in that case it was held that the period of limitation for making deposit or investment in new assets should be reckoned from the date of actual receipt of the consideration- If period is reckoned from date of agreement and receipt of part payment at the first instance, then it would lead to an impossible situation by asking assessee to invest money in specified asset before actual receipt of the same. Likewise in other cases it was held by the various authorities that the liberal interpretation should be considered in case of exemption. The case of Jyotindra H Shodhan Vs ITO [2003 (7) TMI 255 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] is also not applicable because the case is related to the provision of section 54E and not 54B. We direct the AO to allow the assessee’s claim of deduction U/s 54B on sale of agricultural land. Sold agriculture and was capital assets or not - Other grounds raised by the assessee with regard to the fact that agricultural land so sold by the assessee are not an asset U/s 2(14)(iii)(a) or (b) as these provisions stood then and therefore no capital gains are leviable. The assessee had also raised a ground that the agricultural land sold by the assessee is not urban but rural agricultural land. As we have already decided the issue for granting deduction U/s 54B we are not going into the grounds taken by the assessee with regard to nature of land so held and sold by the assessee being in the nature of agricultural land or not.
|