TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 839X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he nature of land purchased by assessee. To prove the claim of Section 54B, the assessee has shown agricultural income in three preceeding assessment years and return of income for three preceeding assessment years were filed the assessee also furnished the details recorded in Form 8 and 7/12 extract. Besides that, the assessee also furnished the evidence of sale of cotton, vegetables to APMC and Amish Oil Mills. AO while rejecting the claim of assessee u/s 54B, referred the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Siddhartha J. Desai [ 1981 (9) TMI 48 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] but AO failed to appreciate the decision in correct perspective as the fact of said decision are more favorable to the assessee. the nature of land was also converted from agriculture to non-agriculture purpose just before transfer of land and the same was considered as a transfer of agriculture land as far as seller is concerned. Those facts exactly similar to the facts of the present case. Thus, we find that the ld. CIT(A) on appreciation of such evidence, allowed the deduction under Section 54B of the Act. We find that finding of ld. CIT(A) is based on appreciation of evidence. Inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without having furnished any documentary evidences by the assessee ? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in accepting submission of the assessee that the date of transfer of property is in the year in which the Agreement to sale was made with purchaser, when the assessee himself show the sale transaction in the year in which the Sale Deed is registered ? 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Surat may be set aside and that of the A.O.'s order may be restored. 2. The assessee in his cross appeal has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partly confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 73,46,536/- u/s 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961 without giving any finding on the issue and also without considering the fact that the jantri value obtained by assessing officer is that of non-agricultural land and not of agricultural ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11,111/- as a part performance of the said consideration. The assessee handed over possession of land on the same date. At the time of handing over the possession, the land was agricultural land. The assessee furnished copy of agreement. The assessee further submitted that the conveyance deed was executed on 10/07/2013. There was some mistake in the payment dates on the conveyance deed so a rectification deed was also registered subsequently on 26/08/2013. In the agreement to sell dated 20/04/2012, it was agreed that purchaser will get the possession and will start procedure for change of land use i.e. non-agricultural use before the Collector. The purchaser will prepare plan for sanction before competent or local authority and will be entitled to get the survey of land by the competent authority. The assessee finally submitted that the land was transferred at the time of agreement within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act and it was agricultural land. At the time of execution of conveyance deed, the nature of land was converted into non- agricultural purpose. The assessee made investment for purchase of another agricultural land in Gothan village and invested Rs. 49,50,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the difference between value determined by Sub-Registrar office and the value of consideration shown on the registered document should not be added. The assessee again filed reply dated 19/12/2016 and explained that the sale deed was executed by showing the sale consideration at Rs. 3,95,11,111/- on 10/07/2013. The Jantri rate of Revenue Survey No. 18 of said land was Rs. 2500 per square meter and as per the sale document, total area of land was 15697 square meter and total value as per Jantri rate comes to Rs. 3,92,42,500/-. However, the document was executed by showing consideration at Rs. 3,95,11,111/-. The stamp duty was charged from purchaser as per Jantri rate applicable for non-agriculture land. Thus, the value of stamp was enhanced to that extent and purchaser has paid the higher stamp duty. The assessee has not received any other amount except the consideration shown on conveyance deed. The reply of the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer recorded that the land was converted from agricultural land to non-agricultural land and development charges was paid to Surat Urban Development Authority (SUDA) in connection with conversion from a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer held that the assessee failed to show the agricultural activities in preceeding years and is not eligible for deduction under Section 54B of the Act. 8. During appellate proceedings the ld. CIT(A) directed the assessee to produce copy of Form 7/12, N.A. order and evidence of sale of agriculture product and return of income for three preceeding assessment years. As per the direction of ld. CIT(A), the assessee furnished requisite details. On considering such details i.e. return of income for A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, the ld. CIT(A) recorded that the assessee was showing regular agricultural income in all assessment years. The land was situated within the City limit and was a capital asset. However, the ld. CIT(A) was of the view that the Assessing Officer has not considered the fact that the assessee purchased agricultural land for an amount of Rs. 3.91 crores and was eligible for deduction as he fulfills the condition of Section 54B of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) on the basis of agriculture income and the other evidence shown in earlier years held the assessee eligible for deduction under Section 54B of the Act. By considering such fact, directed the Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he has filed cross appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee will not get any benefit in filing appeal belatedly rather there is a chance that the delay may not be condoned. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that a liberal view may be taken to condone the small delay of 21 days in filing appeal. 13. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue after going through the contents of order of ld. CIT(A) and the application for condonation of delay would submits, that the Bench may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 14. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties on the plea of condonation of delay. On perusal of operative part of decision of ld. CIT(A), we find that there is no express finding of ld. CIT(A) either in rejecting or in accepting the grounds of appeal against addition under Section 50C of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee on legal advice filed application for rectification under Section 154 of the Act before the ld. CIT(A) and was pursuing remedy bonafidely. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the delay in filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. Only a limited issue on the deduction under Section 54B was that the assessee was using the said land for agriculture purpose. The assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before the ld. CIT(A) proved beyond doubt that the assessee was doing agriculture activities by furnishing requisite evidences. Such fact is otherwise accepted by Assessing Officer in assessment order that nature of business of assessee is agriculture activities on first page of assessment order. The location of land from municipal limit was notwithstanding when the assessee has claimed deduction under Section 54B of the Act. For claiming deduction under Section 54B, the assessee fulfilled all the requisite conditions which were appreciated by the ld. CIT(A) in examining the fact of case and evidence in depth. 18. On the issue/grounds of appeal in assessee s appeal, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has received consideration as recorded in the sale deed itself which is Rs. 3.95 crores only. The additional stamp duty if any was charged by stamp valuation authority by considering the land as non-agricultural land, however, the fact remains the same that the rate of Revenue Surve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agriculture land as far as seller is concerned. Those facts exactly similar to the facts of the present case. Thus, we find that the ld. CIT(A) on appreciation of such evidence, allowed the deduction under Section 54B of the Act. We find that finding of ld. CIT(A) is based on appreciation of evidence with regard to claim of deduction under Section 54B of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in his order which we affirm. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed. 21. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 22. Now adverting to the appeal of assessee. We find that before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has raised specific ground of appeal against invoking provisions of Section 50C of the Act by the Assessing Officer. The assessee also made specific submission on such issue. We find that the ld. CIT(A) neither rejected the corresponding ground of appeal nor discussed the merit/demerit of such ground of appeal. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee sold agricultural land and the value of consideration was more than the Jantri value applicable for agricultural land, the Jantri v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
