TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 54B and 54F on long term capital gain. Moreover, the certificates obtained by the AO in remand proceedings with respect to the impugned land of assessee unequivocally speak against the assessee and the same have not been rebutted by the assessee. Accordingly, the conclusion of capital asset sold by assessee, as observed by the ld. Authorities below, deserves to be sustained. Whether the deduction u/s. 54B and 54F claimed by the assessee is available with reference to the capital gain invested in purchase of agriculture land subsequent to the due date of filing of return of income - Held that:- There is no ambiguity in the relevant provisions of the Act that the assessee was legally obliged to appropriate the amount towards purchase of ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Karnal dated 13.03.2012 for the assessment year 2007-08 on the following grounds : 1. That on the facts in the circumstances of the case the A.O. wrongly refused to allow full exemption U/s 2(14) of the IT. Act in spite of the fact that certificate from the Tehsildar, Panipat, certifying the distance of land beyond 8 K.M. from the municipal limit, was furnished and the learned CIT (A) also erred in confirming the same. 2. That the A.O. without any basis rejected the certificate filed by the Tesildar justifying the distance of the land beyond 8 K.M. and wrongly made total addition of ₹ 4,18,79,866/- which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the land was sold and the area where the land was situated, the assessee filed sale deed which showed sale of total land measuring 11 acres to M/s. Sutluj Real Estate (P) Ltd. and M/s. Kanchanjunga Realtors (P) Ltd. on 24.04.2006 for ₹ 8,61,50,000/-. The land in question was situated at Village Azizzullapur, Tehsil Panipat. Vide reply dated 23.12.2009, the assessee claimed that the land sold was situated beyond 8 Kms from the local limit of Municipality and as such it was not an asset in terms of section 2(14)(iii) of the IT Act. In support, the assessee furnished a copy of letter stated to have been issued by Tehsildar, Panipat. The AO noted in his order that his office collected information of land situated at same village Azizzul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f exemption of remaining investment in land purchase of ₹ 1,07,21,900/- was disallowed for the reason that the said land was purchased subsequent to the due date of filing of return of income and the appellant did not deposit the amount in the Bank under the capital gain account scheme. The exemption of ₹ 10,00,000/- claimed u/s. 54F(1) was also disallowed since the assessee had claimed to have reconstructed a house on the plot of existing house before one year from the date of transfer of the original assets and not after the three years from the date of transfer of the original asset in terms of section 54F(1). It was also observed that the assessee has not purchased any house which is precondition to claim exemption u/s. 54F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24.04.2006 and the assessee failed to rebut this authentic certificate of the competent authority. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order on this count. It is notable that the assessee itself vide its reply furnished the computation of capital gains and investments in purchase of various properties and in reconstruction of residential house so as to claim exemption u/s. 54B and 54F of the Act, which itself alludes that the property sold by the assessee was nothing else but a capital asset. On this premise only, there is sharp contradiction between the initial claim of land being beyond 8 kms from Municipal limit and the claim of exemption u/s. 54B and 54F on long ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. Similarly, as per provisions of section 54F(1) of the Act, the case of construction of a house, deduction available with reference to the amount invested in 3 years subsequent to the date of sale of the asset. In the instant case, since the amount claimed to be invested in the reconstruction of the house was prior to one year from the date of sale, deduction u/s. 54F of the Act was not available to the assessee, as no amount was claimed to have been invested in reconstruction of house subsequent to the date of sale before the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) while affirming the action of the AO has relied on various decisions in the impugned order, which are applicable to the present case. The ld. CIT(A) has made an elaborate discus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
