New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (11) TMI 1195 - ITAT JAIPUR

2015 (11) TMI 1195 - ITAT JAIPUR - TMI - Revision u/s 263 - deduction u/s 54B claimed by assessee qua sale of Sohna land was wrongly allowed as one half of the new agriculture land was purchased in the name of the assessee's wife Smt. Anita Rajni - Held that:- While examining the record under sec. 263, CIT has to see whether the subordinate authority has considered relevant issues and enquired into the relevant aspect of the claims in the year in question. Since the agricultural income in this y .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ay of plots in sq. yards become necessary for allowability of claim. Record does not reveal that these were considered or inquired. Thus there is a total lack of enquiry on these aspects besides whether the agricultural income was earned or not from this very land. In our considered view, the assessment order suffers from lack of enquiry on these crucial aspects and it is not a case of partial inquiry as pleaded to be covered by the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM For The Assessee : Shri P.C. Parwal For The Revenue : Smt. Rolee Agarwal (CIT-DR) ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT, Alwar dated 24-01-2014 for the assessment year 2006-07 u/s 263 of the Act raising following grounds. (i) challenging the action of ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act in setting aside the assessment order dated 23-12-2011 u/s 148 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. (ii) the ld. CIT held in not allowing dedu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

equested to treat the return already filed as in compliance to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The basis and reasons for reopening of the assessment was to the effect that the deduction u/s 54B of the Act claimed by assessee qua sale of Sohna land was wrongly allowed as one half of the new agriculture land was purchased in the name of the assessee's wife Smt. Anita Rajni. Consequently, claim u/s 54B of the Act was restricted to ₹ 15,51,730/-. 2.2 The ld. CIT called for the record and found .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the order u/s 148 after conducting proper and adequate enquiry and arrived at a definite view that the land sold was urban agricultural land and has been used for agricultural purposes in preceding two years besides section 54B does not restrict the benefit to the agricultural land only. For this proposition, decision of Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT Vs. Savita Rani 271 ITR 40 was relied upon. Further, in support of the user of the land for agricultural purpose, copy of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sold land belongs to the assessee. Thus the AO verified the claim of the assessee u/s 54B of the Act and disallowed ½ of the land was purchased in the name of the assessee. These facts clearly show that the AO made proper enquiry and applied his mind. Therefore, he disallowed 1/2 of claim u/s 54B of the Act. Since due inquiries were made, his order cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. (ii) In the return for the assessment year 2005-06, the assesse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d attached with the letter, besides this fact was never communicated to the assessee at any time. By affidavit Shri Shyam Singh has deposed that the assessee had carried out the agricultural operations on the this land. (iv) From the copy of Khasra Girdawari from F.Y. 2002- 03 to 2006-07, it is reflected that agricultural activities were carried on this land. All these facts prove that all such documents were filed before the AO in the assessment proceedings which were verified by him and after .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rds is agricultural and it is not converteded into residential. The ld. AR placed following case laws:- (i) Hindustan Industrial Resources Ltd. Vs ACIT [2011] 335 ITR 77 (Delhi) (ii) CIT v Smt. DEBBJE ALENO [2011] 331 ITR 59 (Bom) (iii) CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (HC) (iv) Mahish Kumar Vs. CIT (2012) 134 ITD 27/ 17 ITR (Trib.) 324 (Indore)(Trib.) (v) CIT Vs. Gaberil India Ltd. 203 ITR 108, 113, 114 (Bom.) (HC) (vi) CIT Vs. Amit Corpn. (2012) 213 Taxman 19 (Guj.) (HC) (M .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that on perusal of the record, the copy of jamabandi was not found and a copy of jamabandi for financial year 2001-02 was found which does not pertain to the land sold in this year. ii. The agricultural land is always sold on the basis of Khasra Numbr and measurement in Marla and Sarsai whereas the assessee has sold this land as residential measuring in sq. yards. iii. Land measuring 222.23. sq.yards sold vide agreement dated 20- 03-2006 for ₹ 13.60 lacs as a building consisting of Nine R .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd for agricultural purpose in the two years immediately preceding the date of such transfer. In this regard, reliance is placed to the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Smt. Asha George vs. ITO (2013) 351 ITR 0123 in which Hon'ble High Court affirmed the finding of the lower authorities that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of Section 54B on the ground that the property which she sold was not used for agricultural purposes for a period of two years prior to date of th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

me rests on preceding year. The agricultural income shown in earlier year has not been demonstrated to be earned from the land which is sold in the form of plots by the assessee. It is a settled law that burden to prove the eligibility for claim of deduction and exemption is on the assessee. While examining the record under sec. 263, CIT has to see whether the subordinate authority has considered relevant issues and enquired into the relevant aspect of the claims in the year in question. Since t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version