9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 854X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Rs. 29,32,189/- as against actual sales consideration of Rs. 26,95,500/- by incorrectly distinguishing the case laws relied by the assessee. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of AO in not allowing the claim of dalali payment of Rs. 75.000/- on sale of land and fencing expenses of Rs. 2,10,000/- on the agricultural land purchased by the assessee in computing the capital gain." Grounds of ITA No. 303/JP/2017 "1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of AO in not allowing the claim of deduction u/s 54B of Rs. 8,05,540/- on the ground that no agriculture activities were conducted on Khasra No.890 & 886 in two preceding years prior to the date of sale. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of AO in taking the sales consideration of the agricultural land sold U/s 50C at Rs. 26,02,211/- as against actual sales consideration of Rs. 23,89,250/- incorrectly distinguishing the case laws relied by the assessee. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 50C(1) of the Act and taken value of Rs. 29,32,189/- as deemed sale consideration for the purpose of calculating capital gain. 5. That the assessee had purchased another agriculture land on 27- 04- 2012 for a consideration of Rs. 18,80,400/-. 6. That the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act for Rs. 25,14,850/-. The AO had considered the value of purchased land at Rs. 18,80,400/-. 7. That as per the Khasara-girdawari record, land in Khasara No. 890 and 886, no agricultural activities were conducted for two preceding years prior to the date of sale. As a result, the AO has disallowed Rs. 9,01,322/- for the purpose of section 54B of the Act. 5.3.2 I have considered the above mentioned fact. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the provision of section 54B for the sake of convenience as under:- 54B. Capital gain on transfer of land used for agricultural purposes not to be charged in certain cases.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a capital asset being land which, in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place, was being used by the assessee or a parent o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all be charged under section 45 as the income of the previous year in which the period of two years from the date of the transfer of the original asset expires; and (ii) the assessee shall be entitled to withdraw such amount in accordance with the scheme aforesaid. The AO has disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee on the following reasons:- 1. That the sale consideration received by the assessee has not been utilized in purchase of other agricultural land or deposited unutilized amount in the Capital Gain Deposit Scheme, 1988 up to the date of filing of return u/s 139(1) as per condition laid down u/s 54B(2) of the Act. 2. That land of Khasara 890 and 886 was not utilized for agricultural purposes within two years from the date of transfer as per conditions laid down in section 54B(1) of the Act. 3. That deemed sale consideration is to be adopted u/s 50C of the Act. Point no. 1:- Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2010- 11 has decided that for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 54B of the Act, if the assessee has purchased eligible assets u/s 54B within the period of two years from the date of transfer then the deduction is allowable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was no supporting document with regard to this claim. Ld. AR has relied on the decision in the case of ACIT Vs N. Raghu Verma (2013) 42 ITD 421 (Hyd)(Trib). 6. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the orders of the authorities below. 7. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. I have also perused the order of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench, but the facts of these assessees cases are completely at variance. There is no evidence in support of the contentions raised in the submissions by the ld AR. It is admitted fact that there was no agriculture activity on these lands in the two preceding years from the sale of the land. Therefore, I have no alternate but to confirm the findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Ground No. 1 of both these appeals stand dismissed. 8. In the ground No. 2, the issue involved is sale consideration lower than the stamp duty valuation and additions made U/s 50C of the Act in both these cases. The ld CIT(A) has dismissed this ground. The ld CIT(A)'s adjudication regarding this ground in the case of Virendra Singh is as under: "6.3 I have gone through the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot allowing the claim of Dalali payment and the fencing expenses incurred. The ld. CIT(A) has dealt the issue in the case of Virendra Singh as under: "7.3 I have gone through the assessment order as well as submissions made by the AR. Any claim of expenditure has to be backed by evidence of such expenditure and has to be related to the transaction. In this case, the appellant had failed to give evidences before the A.O. Even during appellate proceedings, no credible evidences have been provided. Therefore, A.O is justified in disallowing the expenditure of Rs. 75,000/- claimed as dalali w.r.t the land transaction. Accordingly, appellant's ground of appeal on this issue is dismissed. 8.2 I have gone through the assessment order as well as submissions made by the AR. Any claim of expenditure has to be backed by evidence of such expenditure and has to be related to the transaction. In this case, the appellant had failed to give evidences before the A.O. Even during appellate proceedings, no credible evidences have been provided. Therefore, A.O is justified in disallowing the expenditure of Rs. 2,10,000/- claimed as expenses related to fencing of the land. Accordingly, appellant's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
