TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 1038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tration of the sale agreement is concerned, if both the parties proceeded to carry the execution of the sale as per the agreement whether it is registered agreement or not, there is no effect so far as transfer is concerned. Therefore, the case law relied on by the ld. DR is altogether on a different context and have no application to the fact of the present case. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) and the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. CIT(Appeals) directing the AO to give relief of 50% on the strength of fresh evidences produced - Production of Additional Evidence under Rule 46A - HELD THAT:- It amounts to violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules which elucidates that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., Coimbatore to sell the agricultural land for a consideration of ₹ .11,00,00,000/- on 27.03.2008. In pursuant to the above agreement, the assessee was paid ₹ .50.00 lakhs on 27.03.2008, ₹ .4.00 crores on 17.07.2008, ₹ .1.50 crores on 27.08.2008 and remaining balance of ₹ .5.00 lakhs was paid on 30.12.2008 and sale deed was executed. 4. The assessee, out of the sale proceeds received from the purchaser of the above land, had purchased properties vide document No. 8547/2008 on 18.09.2008 for ₹ .47,53,223/-, document No. 8743/2008 on 04.10.2008 for ₹ .51,47,014/- and document No. 8295/2008 on 24.09.2008 for ₹ .28,68,302/-. The total amount paid by the assessee to various purchasers of the la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat M/s. Lotus Eye Care Hospital Ltd., who purchased the property enjoyed the possession of the land from 10.09.2008 directed the Assessing officer to allow exemption claimed by the assessee under section 54B of the Act. On being aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal. 6. The ld. DR strongly contended that the assessee is eligible for deduction if he has purchases the land for agricultural purpose within a period of two years after transfer of agricultural land. In the present case, the assessee purchased the land prior to the transfer of the land and he was not eligible for deduction under section 54B of the Act. He further submitted that even though sale agreement was entered into on 20.07.2008, the property was transferred only in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee has entered into an agreement with M/s. Lotus Eye Care Hospital Ltd. to sell the property for ₹ .11,00,00,000/- on 27.03.2008. The assessee has initially received at the time of sale agreement ₹ .50,00,000/-. Thereafter he has received ₹ .4.00 crores on 17.07.2008, ₹ .1.50 crores and the sale was executed after receiving ₹ .5.00 crores on 30.12.2008. Before execution of sale deed, the assessee has received ₹ .6.00 crores. 9. The assessee before execution of the sale deed purchased the properties vide document No. 8547/2008 on 18.09.2008 for ₹ .47,53,223/-, document No. 8743/2008 on 04.10.2008 for ₹ .51,47,014/- and document No. 8295/2008 on 24.09.2008 for ₹ .28,68,302/- and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, the execution of sale deed was delayed and the sale deed was executed in December, 2008. So far as the first objection raised by the ld. DR is concerned, the property was only transferred in December, 2008, therefore, the property purchased before that date is not eligible for claiming deduction under section 54B. In our opinion, this is only a hyper technical objection raised by the ld. DR, because, the assessee has received substantial amount from the purchaser before executing sale deed. So far as registration of the sale agreement is concerned, if both the parties proceeded to carry the execution of the sale as per the agreement whether it is registered agreement or not, there is no effect so far as transfer is concerned. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bills showing that levelling was done and also fencing was put around the acquired land. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to 50% of ₹ .47,18,010/- on the strength of fresh evidences produced without remanding the evidences to the Assessing Officer for verification or obtained any report from the Assessing Officer. This, in our opinion, amounts to violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules which elucidates that before any additional evidence is accepted, the other party has to be given an opportunity of hearing. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate that the matter requires re-examination by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we restore the issue back to the file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
