9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirming the alleged addition u/s.14A even after observing that the sufficient opportunity was not given by the AO during assessment proceedings. 5. The Learned CIT(A) erred in interpreting the provisions of Sec.54B and in not allowing the benefit of exemption from capital gain tax to the appellant after the capital gains are totally invested as required by the Sec.54B of the I.T. Act, 1961. 6. The Learned CIT(A) did not appreciate the ratio of the judgments and rulings given by the higher authorities in respect of interpretation of capital gains exemption section series, i.e. Sec.54 & 54F and denied the benefit of judgments only because the judgments refers to Sec.54 and Sec.54F and not Sec.54B. 7. The appellant craves leave to add and/or amend the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing." 3. The issue raised in the Grounds of appeal No.1 & 3 is against non provision of reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), against which no arguments have been raised and even both the authorities below have allowed reasonable opportunity to assessee and hence are dismissed. Further, the assessee vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpenditure being relatable to the exempt income, then also, the Assessing Officer has to record a satisfaction before invoking and or applying the provisions of section 14A of the Act. Such is the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) which reads as under : "37. We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situation a different view could have been taken for the Assessment Year 2002-2003. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules merely prescribe a formula for determination of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act in a situation where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the claim of the assessee. Whether such determination is to be made on application of the formula prescribed under Rule 8D or in the best judgment of the Assessing Officer, what the law postulates is the requirement of a satisfaction in the Assessing Officer that having regard to the accounts of the assessee, as placed before him, it is not possible to generate the requisite satisfaction with regard to the correctnes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 29 lakhs made by assessee in the agricultural land. The plea of the assessee before the CIT(A) was that the word singular represented plural and consequently, the assessee was entitled to claim the aforesaid deduction under section 54B of the Act in respect of both the investments made in separate agricultural lands by the assessee. The CIT(A) did not allow the claim of the assessee and upheld the order of the Assessing Officer against which the assessee is in appeal. 10. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee before me stressed that though the word used is singular but the same has to be applied in plural. In this regard, he made strong reliance on the Circular issued by the CBDT in respect of section 54 and 54F of the Act wherein it was clarified that the said deduction is available for making an investment in one residential house. However, no such clarification was given in respect of section 54B of the Act. He stressed that the investment made by the assessee in two separate agricultural lands purchased out of the sale proceeds of the land sold by her need to be allowed in the hands of the assessee. 11. The ld. Departmental Representative for the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is made into another asset. The provisions of the Act are clear that the said investment is to be made in one new asset. There was some ambiguity in the provisions of section 54 and 54F which was clarified by the Finance Act, 2014. However, since there was no ambiguity in the provisions of section 54B of the Act, there was no clarification needed to be given. Accordingly, I find no merit in the plea of the assessee that it could claim the aforesaid deduction in respect of two separate investments in agricultural lands, made by the assessee consequent to selling of one agricultural land. In case, the assessee had sold two pieces of land, i.e. agricultural land, then it could claim the deduction against the aforesaid investments in two separate pieces of land. However, in the present case, it is not so. Hence, I find no merit in the plea of the assessee. 13. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has placed reliance on the ratio laid down in CIT Vs. Smt.Savitarani (2004) 270 ITR 0040 (P&H). In the facts of the said case, the assessee sold the land out of her share in a piece of land but vide three registered separate sale deeds. The question which arose in that cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
