9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee on merits. 3. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under. 4. Assessee is an individual engaged in the business of Trading in Cloths. Assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 on 28.09.2008 declaring total income of Rs. 3,07,360/- The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed under section 143(3) vide order dated 24.12.2010 and the total income was determined at Rs. 10,43,750/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) vide order dated 27.12.2012 dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following two effective ground:- 1. Both, the ld. A.O. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that though Assessee had claim deduction under section 54B amounting to Rs. 6 lacs in the computation furnished during assessment proceedings but had furnished evidence for purchase of new asset for only Rs. 79,400/-. He also noted that Section 54B is applicable to sale of agricultural land which was used for agriculture purpose and the Assessee also purchases new asset being land to be used for agriculture purposes. A.O. noted that the land was converted as non agriculture prior to sale. He also noted that Assessee had not purchased new asset within the time stipulated under section 54B of the Act and the sale consideration was also not deposited in the account as provided in the section. He accordingly calculated the Assessee's share of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was a residential land and not an agricultural land and the land that was sold was converted into land for non agricultural purpose prior to its sale have not been rebutted by the Assessee. He therefore based on the material on record has given a finding that the land sold was not an agriculture land nor was the subsequent land which was purchased an agriculture land. He has further noted that the value of land purchased were also less than required for claiming the exemption. Before us, no material has been brought on record to controvert the findings of CIT(A). We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus this ground of Assessee is dismissed. 2nd ground is with respect to confirming the addition make on acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
