TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this claim for exemption in the original return of income - CIT(A) opined that the said claim of the assessee though has not been in the original return of income, the same cannot be denied if the assessee is entitled for the same. He thus, directs the AO to verify the claim of the assessee in terms of the provisions of section 54B of the Act and to allow the same if the assessee satisfies the requirement under the said provisions of law - Held that:- The approach taken by the Ld. CIT(A) in dealing with the claim u/s.54B of the assessee is just and proper, without any ambiguity, whatsoever, and we thus find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A). The same is hereby upheld. To meet the ends of justice, we further add that the AO should give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee while considering the claim of under s.54B of the Act taking into consideration of the entire evidences already available on record as well as other documentary evidence which the assessee may choose to file in support of the claim on this issue. The ground of the appeal preferred by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. - I.T.A. No.527/Ahd/2017 - - - Dated:- 18-7-2018 - SHRI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter preferred appeal before the appellate forum. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) on the basis of the materials available as also on the ratio laid down in the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. DCIT in ITA No.1237/Ahd/2013, for AY 2008-09, dated 30.09.2016 directed the AO to compute the capital gains on the sale of agricultural land as per valuation of stamp duty authority in November 2010 or total consideration received/receivable by the assessee whichever is higher, against which the Revenue has come up in appeal before us. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Ld. Tribunal on the same issue in the matter of Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. DCIT in ITA No.1237/Ahd/2013 for the AY 2008-09. 5.1. On the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Revenue relied upon the order passed by the Ld. AO. 6. We have heard the Representatives of the respective parties. We have perused the relevant materials available on record. It appears from the records that the assessee sold two properties both were registered o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further that the first proviso shall apply only in case where the amount of consideration or a part thereof, has been received by way of an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or by use of electronic clearing system through a bank account, on or before the date of the agreement for transfer. The explanatory statement also read as under:- Under the existing provisions contained in section 50C in case of transfer of a capital assets being land or building or both, the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority for the purpose of payment of stamp duty shall be taken as the full value of consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gains, the Income Tax Simplification Committee (Easwar Committee) has in its first report, pointed out that this provision does not provide any relief where the seller has entered into an agreement to sell the property much before the actual date of transfer of the immovable property and the sale consideration is fixed in such agreement, whereas similar provision exists in section 43CA of the Act i.e.when an immovable property is sold as a stock in trade. The Ld.CIT(A), therefore, considered the inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per provisions of section 54B of the Act and to allow the same provided the assessee satisfies all the criterion in terms of the said section against which Revenue has come up in appeal before us. 8. The facts is this that the assessee has also purchased two agricultural plot of land on 25.10.2011 and 07.02.2013 for the total consideration of ₹ 5,00,000/- and ₹ 1,44,000/- respectively; payments were made partly by cheques and partly by cash. The deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.54B of the Act was negated by the AO on the premise that the said claim for exemption was not filed by the assessee in the original return of income. In fact, the assessee has not filed any return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act. During the course hearing of the matter, the Ld. Representative of the assessee contended before us that the appellant purchased the new Agriculture land in next year within time limit of 2 years from the date of sale of old land, details whereof is as follows: DATE CHEQUE NO. AMOUNT BANK 25/10/2011 73059 500000 ADC BANK ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
