TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment to sale which thus leaves no room for Ld. Pr. CIT to assume jurisdiction on this particular issue. This common issue covers appeals in the case of Shankarlal Mukati, Babulal Mukati, Kailash chandra Mukati, Tulsi Bai Mukati, Radheyshyam Mukati, Motilal Mukati Motilal Mukati (L/H Ramchandra Mukati) wherein Ld. Pr. CIT assumed the jurisdiction only on this particular issue. AO has conducted necessary enquiry on this particular issue and have also taken one of the permissible view judicially accepted, there was no justification on the part of the Ld. Pr. CIT to invoke the provision of section u/s 263 of the Act. We, therefore, quash the proceedings carried out u/s 263 of the Act and restore the assessment order originally framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act in the case of all these seven assessees and allow their respective appeals. Deduction u/s 54B - In the instant case the agreement to sale was not cancelled and the same was acted upon on at the same sale consideration and finally executed the registered sale deed with the same person though acting on behalf of the company as its director and since the assessee has utilized the same sale consideration for purchasi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tified in setting aside the order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147. - ITA No.870 to 874/Ind/2019, ITA No.433/Ind/2018, ITA No.434/Ind/2018, ITA No.436/Ind/2018, ITA No.442/Ind/2018, ITA No.435/Ind/2018, ITA No.437/Ind/2018, ITA No.438/Ind/2018, ITA No.425/Ind/2018 - - - Dated:- 28-6-2021 - Hon ble Manish Borad, Accountant Member And Hon ble Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri S.N. Agrawal, CA For the Revenue : Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT ORDER PER BENCH: The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of the assessee(s) for Assessment Year 2009-10 are directed against the separate orders of Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-I (in short Ld. PCIT], Indore dated 15.03.2018 and 27.02.2019. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 122 days in filing of the appeals in ITANos.870 to 874/Ind/2019 and delay of 54 days in the remaining appeals captioned above. Respective assessee(s) have filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. All the assessee(s) in instant appeals are relatives and are engaged in agricultural activities. In the condonation applications common reason is death of one of the family ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessing officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act even when the order as passed by the assessing officer was neither erroneous prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 1.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT erred in set aside the order as passed by the assessing officer by invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act even when the order was passed by the assessing officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act after full application of mind. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT erred in set aside the order as passed by the assessing officer by invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act merely for applying the sale consideration as per provision of section 50C of the Income Tax Act even when consideration was received by the assessee in previous years as per guidelines as applicable in that year. 3. That the appellant reserves its right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken. Assessee(s) has raised following common grounds of appeal in ITANos.435,437 438/Ind/2018:- 1.1 That on the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt reserves its right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken. 4. From perusal of the above grounds we find that most of issues raised are common, therefore as accepted by all the parties concerned, we have taken up all these appeals together for adjudication and the same are being disposed of by way of this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 5. In all these instant appeals assessees have challenged the action of Ld. Pr. CIT-1 Indore, invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act and directing for the revision of the assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act. The grounds of appeals further indicate that following three issues are involved in the impugned order framed u/s 263 of the Act:- a. Value of sale consideration to be adopted for computing the capital gain b. Allowability of deduction u/s 54B of the Act c. Allowability of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. For adjudication of these common issues as a lead case we are taking the facts of the case of Kamal Kishore Mukati ITANo.870/Ind/2019 to which consent was given by Ld. Counsel(s) for the assessee and the Ld. Departmental Representative(DR). 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, registry value and date of assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act are provided in the chart below: Name of the assessee ITA No. Share of Sale consideration Registry value Assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 date Kamal Kishore Mukati 870/Ind/ 2019 38,29,600/- 1,91,48,000/ 5 19.04.2016 Dilip Mukati 871/Ind/ 2019 38,29,600/- 1,91,48,000/ 5 19.04.2016 Vishnu Mukati 872/Ind/ 2019 38,29,600/- 1,91,48,000/ 5 19.04.2016 Ashok Mukati 873/Ind/ 2019 38,29,600/- 1,91,48,000/ 5 19.04.2016 Akash Mukati 870/Ind/ 2019 38,29,600/- 1,91,48,000/ 5 19.04.2016 Shankarlal Mukati 433/Ind/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 38,29,600/- (1,91,48,000/5) Whereas the market value of the land was assessed by the Sub registrar at ₹ 3,60, 00,000/-. Further, the AD had also taken sales consideration at ₹ 38,29,600/-[ i.e. 1/5 of 1,91,48,000) and accordingly calculated Long Term Capital Gain while completing the reassessment u/s 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act /961. However, in view of section 50C, the sale value o] the land was required to be taken at ₹ 72,00,000/- (3,60,00,000/5) instead of ₹ 38,29,600/-. (ii) From the perusal 0.[ case records if is seen that conditions of section 54B are not satisfied in respect claim of ₹ 1,03,450/- allowed by the AO The land has been purchased prior to registered sale of land by the assessee. (iii) The condition of section 54F are not satisfied in respect of ₹ 20,56,335/- allowed by the AO as valuation is based on Fair Market Price as on 22.03.2016 while assessment pertains to A. Y. 2009- 10. The claim of deduction u/s 54F has not been properly examined by AO So the same is construed cost has been considered to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to interest of revenue. Shankarlal Mukati 2. The relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation at ₹ 99,26,000 and accordingly calculated Long Term Capital Gain while completing the reassessment u/s 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act. 1961.However, in view of section 50C, the sale value of the land was required to be taken at ₹ 2,07,61,000/- (instead of ₹ 99,26,000/-. 9. Since we are dealing with the common issues on the basis of facts of the assessee naely Kamal Kishore Mukati, we observe that detailed submission was filed by the assessee before Ld. Pr. CIT submitting that Ld. AO has carried out detailed enquiry about the transaction of sale of immovable property and specific notice was issued u/s 148 of the Act to which the details information were filed and the view adopted by the ld. Assessing Officer is one of the legally permissible view as held by Hon'ble Courts and Hon'ble Tribunals. All information were provided to the Ld. AO and after due application of mind he has accepted the submissions and have also made the additions as and where needed. It was also submitted that copies of agreement of sale and the registered sale deed were placed before Ld. AO and before Ld. Pr. CIT. The sale consideration was received much before the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Indore) in pursuance of agreement dated 31.03.2006 is not correct as the same land cannot again be transferred to a, different entity (Mis Coral Infrastructures Private Limited) vide sale deed dated 11.04.2008. In this regard assessee has contended that sale was made to Shri Vijay Mirchandani who was person concerned in both Mis Global Developers and Mis Coral Infrastructure P. Ltd. However both above entities are different legal entities and Mis Coral Infrastructure P. Ltd is a company where Shri Vijay Mirchandani is director. So sale cann't be treated to the same person by sale agreement and registered sale deed. 4.1.5 As regarding the assessee's contention that it was due to ignorance of law on part of assessee, it may be mentioned that it is out of context as the Assessing Officer was required to adopt the sale consideration of the land as per provisions of section 50C of the IT Act based on the registered sale deed dated 11.04.2008 which has not been done. 4.1.6 It may also be mentioned that assessee has claimed the indexation of cost of land based on date of transfer being 11.04.2008 which is the date of registered deed. In above circumstances, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may call for and examine the record of any proceedings and if he considers that any order passed therein by the assessing officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may after giving the assessee an opportunity of being hear and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case, justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. 6. It- may be mentioned that Explanation-2 to section 263 has been introduced w.e.f. 01-06- 2016 in the section 263 of the IT Act which states as under:- Explanation-Z- For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared than an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner:- The order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made. The order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; The order has not been made in accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 (Del), it is incumbent on the AO to further investigate the facts stated in the retum when circumstances would make such an enquiry prudent and his order becomes erroneous if such an enquiry has not been made. Moreover, as held by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Addl. CIT us. Mukur Corporation (1978) 111ITR 312(Guj), an order of assessment passed by the AO without making necessary enquiries on certain important points connected with tne assessment would be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. To the similar effect is the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CWT vs. Ramnarayan Bhojnagarwala (1992) 104 CTR (Cal) 50 .' (1992) 194 ITR 489 (Cal), wherein it was held that whenever a question arises as to whether a correct and proper assessment has been made upon due enquiry and it is found that no such enquiry was made, the CIT has jurisdiction in such a case to set aside the assessment by invoking the powers conferred upon him under s. 263. In the case of 1alabar Industrial Co. Ltd. relied upon by both the sides at the time of hearing before us, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the phrase prejudicial to the interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re a detailed enquiry was conducted by the Ld. AO with regard to the transaction in question by way of calling of various documentary evidences which were duly filed and the same were going through before completing the assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Thus, this is neither a case of no enquiry nor incomplete enquiry. Written synopsis filed by the Ld. counsel for the assessee is reproduced below: 1.1] The present appeal is filed against the order as passed under section 263 of the Income Tax act dated27-02-2019. 1.2] The Ld Pr CIT issued show cause notice under section 263 of the Income Tax Act on the following two points: To adopt the sale value as per section 50C of ₹ 72,00,000/- in place of actual sale consideration of ₹ 3829600/- Allegedly for the reason that condition for allowability of deduction under section 54B of the Act in respect of ₹ 5,73,025/- was not fulfilled. Since, the land was purchased prior to the sale of land by the assessee Allegedly for the reason that condition of Section 54F are not sati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ani as a director of M/s Coral Infrastructure P Limited. The amount as received by the assessee in the year 2005-06 and in 2006-07 was adjusted in the registry as executed. 1.5] That in view of the above facts, the Pr CIT was not justified in adopting the guideline as applicable in the year in which final registry was executed. 1.6] The Ld Pr CIT rejected the submission merely for the reason that sale agreement was executed by the assessee with another firm and registry was executed in the name of another firm. The Ld Pr CIT failed to appreciate that in the sale agreement itself in Para 5 on inner Page No 6 [ Page no 8 of the Compilation] it was stated that the seller is bound to execute registry in the name of buyer or in the name of any other person as instructed by the buyer. Hence, conclusion as drawn by the Ld Pr CIT was neither legal nor proper. 1.7.1] That in the following decisions it was held that the date of agreement of sale is to be considered for determination of value as per section 50C of the Income Tax Act: S.No Citation Reference 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 2(47) of the Act states that the transfer, in relation to a capital asset, includes the extinguishment of any rights therein. In SanjeevLal v. CIT [2014] 365 ITR 389/225 Taxman 239/46 taxmann.com 300 (SC), the Supreme Court considered the question as to whether the date on which the agreement for sale was executed could be considered the date on which the property was transferred. The Supreme Court held that when an agreement to sell in respect of immovable property is executed, a right in person am is created in favour of the vendee and when such a right is created in favour of the vendee, the vendor is restrained from selling the said property to someone else because the vendee gets a legitimate right to enforce a specific performance of the agreement. The Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of Section 2 (47) (ii) of the Act held that if a right in respect of any capital asset is extinguished and that right is transferred to someone else, it would amount to transfer of a capital asset. The Supreme Court held that once an agreement to sell is executed in favour of some person, the said person gets a right to get the property transferred in his favour and, cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted w.e.f 01-04-2017 but these proviso was inserted to explain date of valuation as applicable as on the date of agreement and not on the date on which registry was actually executed. Hence, both these proviso having retrospective effect from the date on which provision of section 50C of the Income Tax act inserted in the Act i.e. w.e.f 01-04-2003. Similar view was expressed in the following decisions:- S.No Citation Reference 1 Ms ZubeidaShahanshah ITA No 519/ Lkw/2017 dt 31-01-2019 2 DharmshibhiSonaniVs ACIT, Surat [2016] 75 Taxmann.Com 141 [ Ahmedabad Bench ] 161 ITD 627 (Ahd ) 3 Hari Mohan Das Tandon (HUF) 169 ITD 639 (All) 4 M/s Jai Laxmi Developers (P) Ltd Vs DCIT ITA No 5578/ Del/ 2014 dt 5 SmtKundanbenAmbhai Shah V. ITO ITA No 3354/ Ahd/ 2014 dt 30-11-2017 1.9.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perusal of the same it is clear that entire credit represent sale consideration as received by the appellant against the sale of Agricultural land. 2.4] That in the present case in hand, the agreement for sale of Agricultural land of the assessee was executed on 31-03-2006 and the assessee received amount towards sale consideration from the year 2005-06 to till the date on which registry was actually executed. 2.5] The amount as paid by the assessee was actually realized by him against the sale of his Agricultural land. The amount so realized was utilized by the assessee towards purchase of new Agricultural land. Hence, deduction as claimed under section 54B of the Act was legal and proper. 2.6] The appellant first entered into an agreement for sale of Agricultural land on 31-03-2006 and in pursuance to that sale agreement, registry was executed on 11-04-2018. The consideration as received by the appellant was utilized towards purchase of new Agricultural land. Hence, the Ld Assessing officer rightly allowed deduction under section 54B of the Income Tax Act. 2.7] That Hon ble Jaipur Bench of ITAT in the case of SmtRukmani Devi AgrawalVs ITO [ App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the fact that the consideration for sale of the existing land was received at the time of the agreement to sell dated 22/11/2012 and possession was also handed over on the said date of agreement. Hence when the agreement was subsequently acted upon and in performance of the said agreement, the parties have finally executed the sale deed then the transaction will be considered as transferred as on the date of the agreement. 2.8] That in view of the above, the Ld Pr CIT was not justified in setting aside the order as passed by the assessing officer. AS REGARDS DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT 3.1] The Appellant had also claimed a deduction of ₹ 1736091 for construction of residential house from the sale proceeds of the sale of impugned immovable property. The claim for deduction was allowed by the learned AO based on various documentary evidences and submissions of the Appellant such as Affidavit in support of construction of new house, withdrawal of amount from bank for construction activity, Physical existence of new residential house which was also confirmed by the Valuation report by chartered engineer. Further as desired by the learned AO the valuat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting aside the order as passed by the assessing officer. 4.2] That in this case originally notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued to taxed the fair market value of sale of immovable properties as per provision of section 50C of the Income Tax Act. We have already reply this point in our previous reply as per this land which is matter of scrutiny is sold as per agreement basis which is made on 31.03.2016. We have also produce copy of agreement of sale is made by ₹ 99,26,000/- with Shri Badrilal Mukati and all payment of this transaction has been received through cheques, therefore we have been calculated our capital gain on actual sales receipt basis and documentary evidences already submitted before you for perusal.. Further expenses on sale we claim for is payment of brokerage as per usual market trend, we have been paid brokerage to broker and copy of saudachitti dated 20.03.2006 is attaching herewith for your perusal. We have been calculated cost of property ₹ 60,53,614/- on the basis of index value from the FY 1980-81, because this is our ancestral property which is received us from our fore-parents, hence we considered market ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n u/s 263 of the Act and set aside the assessment orders framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act to be framed a fresh in light of observations made in the impugned order. 12. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the paper book and written synopsis filed in the case of all the assessees in the instant appeals, impugned orders by the Ld. Pr. CIT, assessment orders framed u/s 147 r.w. 143(3) of the Act and various documentary evidences filed during the course of reassessment proceedings, proceedings u/s 263 of the Act and the documents filed before us. Common grievance in all these appeals made by the assessee is that Ld. Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, using the revisionary powers and also erred in holding that the orders of Ld. AO framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act are erroneous and so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 13. Before going into facts of the case we will like to go through provisions of section 263 of the Act and some settled judicial precedence. Section 263: 263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue.--(1) The Commissioner may call for an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Explanation.--In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub-section (2), the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to Section 129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded. 14. Hon'ble Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) has laid down following ratio with regard to provisions of section 263 of the Act: There can be no doubt that the provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer; it is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law willsatisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue 'has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al authority and based on formation of an opinion with regard to existence of adequate material to satisfy that the decision taken by the AO is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The concept of prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue has to be correctly and soundly understood. It precisely means an order which has not been passed in consonance with the principles of law which has in ultimate eventuate affected realization of lawful revenue either by the State has not been realized or it has gone beyond realization. These two basic ingredients have to be satisfied as sine qua non for exercise of such power. On a perusal of the material brought on record and the order passed by the CIT it is perceptible that the said authority has not kept in view the requirement of s. 263 of the Act inasmuch as the order does not reflect any kind of satisfaction. As is manifest the said authority has been governed by a singular factor that the order of the AO is wrong. That may be so but that is not enough. What was the sequitur or consequence of such order qua prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue should have been focused upon. That having not been done, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the High Court reads as under: 63. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas Polymer reported in 341 ITR 537 has held as under: We are thus of the opinion that the provisions of s. 263 of the Act, when read as a composite whole make it incumbent upon the CIT before exercising revisional powers to : (i) call for and examine the record, and (ii) give the assessee an opportunity of being heard and thereafter to make or cause to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary. It is only on fulfilment of these twin conditions that the CIT may pass an order exercising his power of revision. Minutely examined, the provisions of the section envisage that the CIT may call for the records and if he prima facie considers that any order passed therein by the AO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, he may after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify. The twin requirements of the section are manifestly for a purpose. Merely because the CIT considers on examination of the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me and grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 20. Now examining the facts of the instant case in the light of the above judgments and discussions made herein above we note that in the instant cases the agreement to sale was executed on 31.03.2006 with Mr. Vijay Mirchandani acting on behalf of M/s Global Developers. All payments against the sale consideration were received through banking channels. Subsequently on the request of the original buyer M/s Global Developers and as per the conditions mentioned in the agreement to sale, final registry was done in favour of M/s. Coral Infrastructure (through its director Mr. Vijay Mirchandani). Sale deed was finally registered during April, 2008 between the same parties (assessee(s) and Vijay Mirchandani) and the sale consideration mentioned was the same as was mentioned in the agreement to sale entered during March, 2006. Agreement to sale was never cancelled. Mr. Mirchandani is a director of M/s Coral Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. During the revisionary proceedings Ld. Pr. CIT has observed that Ld. AO was not justified in adopting the sale consideration as on the date of agreement to sale and he ought to have applied the value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 169 ITD 639 ( All) 11 Kundaben Ambhai Shah v. ITO ITA No 3354/ Ahd/ 2014 dt 30-11-2017 12 Dharamhi Bhai Sonani V.ACIT 161 ITD 627 [ Ahd ] 22. Further first and second proviso to section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act as inserted as inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f 01-04-2017 read as under: Provided that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for the transfer of the capital asset are not the same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purposes of computing full value of consideration for such transfer: Provided further that the first proviso shall apply only in a 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 59[or through such other electronic mode as may be prescribed], on or before the date of the agreement for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eyshyam Mukati, Motilal Mukati Motilal Mukati (L/H Ramchandra Mukati) wherein Ld. Pr. CIT assumed the jurisdiction only on this particular issue. Since in view of our above discussions we have held that Ld. AO has conducted necessary enquiry on this particular issue and have also taken one of the permissible view judicially accepted, there was no justification on the part of the Ld. Pr. CIT to invoke the provision of section u/s 263 of the Act. We, therefore, quash the proceedings carried out u/s 263 of the Act and restore the assessment order originally framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act in the case of all these seven assessees and allow their respective appeals. 26. As regards remaining appeals there were two more issues which were considered by Ld. Pr. CIT while setting aside the assessment order for afresh adjudication which firstly included deduction u/s 54B of the Act and secondly for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. As regards deduction u/s 54B of the Act 27. The facts in brief are that the assessee entered into an agreement in March 2006 for sale of agricultural land used for agricultural purpose. He received sale consideration in parts through bankin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the overall facts and surrounding circumstances in which the assessee sold existing agricultural land and purchased new agricultural land. If the intent of the assessee is manifest from the facts and circumstances that the assessee purchased the fresh agricultural land in lieu of the existing agricultural land then the conditions as envisaged in Section 54B of the Act are satisfied. We have already discussed the facts that the assessee received the purchase consideration through post datedcheques which were encashed in part prior to the payment of the purchase consideration through post datedcheques. As discussed above, both the receipts of sale consideration and purchase consideration are through post datedcheques as evident from the record and none of the cheques was encashed on the date of execution of the sale deed but the receipt of sale consideration is after the agreement to sell dated 22/11/2012 and much prior to the sale deed dated 28/01/2013 whereas the entire purchase consideration was paid out from the bank account of the assessee only after the sale deed dated 29/11/2012. These facts clearly established that the receipt as well as payment are through post dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion report of Chartered Engineer. Further, as required by the Ld. AO the valuation of residential house was also obtained and submitted to the Ld. AO which was found to be much higher than the deduction claimed. Based on all such evidences and enquiry Ld. AO was satisfied about the investment in construction of new residential house and the claim of deduction u/s 54 F of the Act. It shows that there was a detailed enquiry of the Ld. AO to verify deduction u/s 54 F of the Act. However, Ld. Pr. CIT in the preceding u/s 263 of the Act alleged that the valuation report is dated 22.03.2016 but the construction was done in 2008. 32. We, however, note that this valuation was carried at the insistence of the ld. AO to verify the physical existence of the property and overall value of investment. It is not a case of no enquiry nor incomplete enquiry rather the Ld. AO to the best of his ability had made detailed enquiry and made proper application of mind and had examined this issue of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. 33. In the given facts and circumstances invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act on this issue so as to give direction to revise the assessment order was un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
