Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 118 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 54B - Disallowance made as no bills of expenses are in the name of assessee - As submitted assessee given the details of agricultural land purchased on sale of ancestral property - HELD THAT:- AO himself recorded that the bills are in the name of Chhaganbhai, who is the co-owner and is party to the sale deed dated 12.02.2014, which itself proves the agriculture activities. Moreover, keeping in view the size of land find no justification of such objection. Capital gain was not utilised before due date of filing return of income u/s 139 - As in Fatima Bai Vs ITO[2008 (10) TMI 563 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] while considering almost similar question of law, though, on the deduction under section 54, held that due date for filing return of income in the said case was 30.07.1998, the assessee was entitled to file return of income under section 139(4), which was within 31.03.1990. Assessee did not file the return within the extended due date, but filed the return on 27.2.1990. However, the assessee had utilized the entire capital gains by purchase of a house property within the stipulated period of section 54(2) i.e., before the extended due date for return under section 139. Assessee technically may have defaulted in not filing the return under section 139(4). But, however, utilized the capital gains for purchase of property before the extended due date under section 139(4). The contention of the revenue that the deposit in the scheme should have been made before the initial due date and not the extended due date is an untenable contention. In view taken by Gauhati High Court in CIT Vs Rajesh Kumar Jalan [2006 (8) TMI 126 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT]wherein it was held that time limit for deposit under the scheme or utilization can be made before due date for filing return under section 139(4). Thus, in view of the legal position, the second objection of the assessing officer also not tenable. Nature of land recorded on the purchase deed is ‘bin Kheti premium patra land’ - We find merit in the submissions of the ld AR for the assessee that land purchased by assessee is ‘agriculture land’ and can be used as ‘NA’ (non-agriculture) subject to premium of payment, which means conditional permission was granted but the land was not converted to NA. Thus, find merit in the submission that nature of land purchased was not changed. Hence, third objection of assessing officer is also overruled. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
|