Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 803 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - deduction u/s 54B as well as under Section 54F - Whether AO examined both the issues thoroughly and took reasonable plausible and legally sustainable view? - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee furnished construction agreement and purchase deed of said house. The assessee has already filed copy of various notices issued by assessing officer and reply of assessee on record. Before us, the assessee vehemently submitted that assessing officer on verification of facts and examination of all the documents accepted the claim of assessee on deduction under Section 54B as well as under Section 54F of the Act. We find merit in the submissions of assessee that both the issues were examined by the assessing officer. Although, there is no detail discussions in the assessment order on both the issues. CIT at the time of revision observed that there is no sanction plan from the Municipal Committee and that there is mismatch in the balance sheet of assessee as on 31/03/2015 - We find that coordinate bench of Chennai Tribunal in B Siva Subramanian [2015 (1) TMI 49 - ITAT CHENNAI] held that there is no condition in section 54F that building plan of residential house should be approved by Municipal Corporation or any other competent authority. Also in CIT Vs P V Narasimhan [1989 (9) TMI 58 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that utilisation of sale proceed of one house to construct first floor after demolishing old structure of second house, the assessee would be entitled for exemption under section 54F. Thus, considering the above legal view by the Tribunal and High Court of Madras, we are of the view that the view taken by assessing officer in passively allowing relief to the assessee on the deduction/ exemption under section 54F is not erroneous Deduction u/s 54B, we find that the only objection raise by the assessing officer is that the assessee purchased new agriculture land prior to transfer of old agriculture land. We find that the sale consideration paid by the assessee is from the advance of Rs. 25.00 lakhs received on execution of agreement. This fact is clearly discernible from the bank statement of the assessee - We find that the combination of this bench in Atul K Patel [2021 (12) TMI 689 - ITAT SURAT] by following the decision of Praveen P Bharucha [2013 (1) TMI 295 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that when part payment so received in advance, was utilized by the assessee in purchasing another agricultural land the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under section 54B of the Act. Thus Assessing Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss to the revenue, or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the Pr CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is legally not stainable. Decided in favour of assessee.
|