|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 431 - ITAT PUNEDeduction u/s 54B - reinvestment of the sale proceeds of the agricultural land and capital gain deposits scheme - NFAC extracted the contention of the assessee and accepted it allowing claim of deduction - requirement of passing a reasoned order by an authority whether administrative, quasi judicial or judicial - AO used Google Satellite Images of the land, concluded that the land was not used for agricultural purposes for last preceding 2 years, accordingly, denied the claim for deduction - HELD THAT:- The order passed by the NFAC does not meet the requirements of being a reasoned order as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PANKAJ GARG VERSUS MEENU GARG & ANR. [2013 (2) TMI 924 - SUPREME COURT] and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. NFAC had not met the reasoning of the AO and there is no material brought before the NFAC or before us controverting the findings of the AO that the respondent-assessee had filed fabricated/forged documents of 7/12 extracts. There is material on record in the form of the statement on oath of Talhati that no agricultural operation was carried on. The finding of the Assessing Officer that the land was purchased by the respondent-assessee not with the intention of carrying out any agricultural activities, but with the intention of development of properties remains uncontroverted. There is no cogent material brought on record in support of retracting the statement of the respondent-assessee withdrawing the claim for deduction u/s 54B during the course of assessment proceedings. The fact that the agricultural lands were situated within the 8 kilometres from the Municipal Corporation of Pune remain uncontroverted. In the circumstances, the order of the NFAC cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Thus, the respondent-assessee had failed to discharge the onus of proving that the lands sold were agricultural lands. Therefore, the order of the NFAC is reversed and the addition made by the AO is restored. Thus, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue stand allowed.
|
