Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURTRevision u/s 264 - benefit u/s 54B denied - HELD THAT:- Revisional Authority while rejecting the revision under Section 264, has stated so, perusal of the order passed by the AO would show that he was carried over by the fact that the land was sold to a person, who is a developer and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to benefit under Section 54B. Apart from saying so, the AO has given a finding that the assessee could not show that there has been an agricultural activity. The first respondent has also reiterated the very same contention. On the other hand, it is stated by the petitioner that he has produced chitta, adangal etc., for the relevant period in support of his contention that the subject matter land were used for agricultural purposes two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place. This Court is of the view that the factual aspects raised in this writ petition, need to be considered once again by the first respondent and to decide the matter as to whether the petitioner has satisfied the requirement contemplated under Section 54B, while seeking deduction. Certainly, the reason stated by the Assessing Officer that the purchaser is the builder and therefore, the land is not an agricultural land, cannot be a reason which is in consonance with the requirement made under Section 54B of the said Act. Therefore, it is for the first respondent to consider and decide the matter afresh. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the first respondent is set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the first respondent to consider the matter afresh by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass fresh order on merits and in accordance with law.
|