2023 (4) TMI 890

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ice to one another: 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 passed by the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as the "CIT") is without jurisdiction and bad in law as also on facts. 3. The learned CIT erred on facts as also in law in alleging that the Assessing Officer (AO) has not verified the Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.80,54,870/- arising on conversion of capital asset into stock in trade and deduction claimed u/s. 54B of the Act though all the requisite details were furnished at the time of assessment proceedings and verified by the AO. 4. The ld. CIT erred on facts as also in law in holding that an agricultural land cannot be converted into stock in trade and the land converted into .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and to stock in trade. However, since an agricultural land cannot be converted into stock-in-trade, the land converted into stock-in-trade could not have been agricultural land. Therefore, deduction under section 54B of the Act cannot be allowed on the gain arising from transfer of such asset, which does not qualify as an agricultural land. 3.1 Before the PCIT, the assessee made several contentions and one of contentions was that there was an inadvertent error in the computation made by the assessee and the actual date of sale of said land was 02-08-2010 and not 02-04-2010. In response to that, the PCIT observed that if the date of transfer were to be taken as 02-08-2010, then in that case exemption under section 54B was not allowable to t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l CIT in the 263 order. 5. On going through the records of the case, and the order of the Principal CIT, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Principal CIT in the instant facts. Even if the alternate contention of the assessee were to be accepted, then also, we observe that in the instant facts the AO has not examined the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 54B of the Act from correct perspective. Accordingly, we are of the considered view, that there is no infirmity in the order of the Principal CIT in holding that the assessing officer has not carried out proper examination of the facts of the case and has not carried out the necessary verification at the time of passing of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X