9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 989 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake u/s 254 - incorrect claim of deduction u/s 54B - part of purchase consideration was paid subsequent to the receipt of the sale consideration of the existing asset part of purchase consideration was paid by the assessee prior to the receipt of the sale consideration - allowability of deduction u/s 54B on investment prior to sale - HELD THAT - Tribunal has decided the issue on merits after analyzing and evaluation of the relevant facts and evidence. The said decision on merits of the case cannot be reconsidered in the proceedings U/s 254(2). The Revenue is reiterating its stand and it was taken by the AO while disallowing the claim of deduction U/s 54B hence, we do not find that the miscellaneous application has pointed out any apparent mistake on the face of the order which can be rectified U/s 254(2). The jurisdiction of the Tribunal U/s 254(2) is very limited and circumscribed to rectify the apparent mistake on record but not to reevaluate the fact and evidence already considered while passing the impugned order on merits. Hence, we do not find any merits or substance in the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Rectification of the Tribunal's order dated 18.09.2018. 2. Eligibility for deduction under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Rectification of the Tribunal's Order: The Revenue sought rectification of the Tribunal's order dated 18.09.2018, claiming that the Tribunal erroneously allowed the deduction under Section 54B by considering the payment of purchase consideration of agricultural land and receipt of sale consideration of the existing asset. The Revenue argued that ?1.09 crores of the purchase consideration was paid before the receipt of the sale consideration, making the deduction inapplicable to that extent. 2. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 54B: The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and reviewing the relevant material, found that the facts presented by the Revenue were already considered in the original order. The Tribunal had analyzed the facts and evidence, concluding that the transaction of sale occurred before the purchase of agricultural land. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer denied the deduction on the grounds that the new agricultural land was purchased before the sale of the existing land. However, the Tribunal found that the sale transaction was completed on 22.11.2012, prior to the purchase of the new land on 29.11.2012. The receipt of sale consideration and payment of purchase consideration through post-dated cheques established that the purchase of agricultural land was subsequent to the sale of the existing property. The Tribunal emphasized that the provisions of Section 54B are beneficial, aimed at relieving genuine assessees from the tax burden on the transfer of agricultural land, provided the new agricultural land is acquired within two years of the sale. The Tribunal highlighted that the relevant date for determining eligibility under Section 54B is the receipt of sale consideration, not the date of execution of the sale deed. The Tribunal referred to the case of CIT Vs. Janardhan Dass, where it was held that the date of receipt of compensation is crucial for determining eligibility under Section 54B. In this case, the assessee received the sale consideration through post-dated cheques, which were encashed before the payment of the purchase consideration for the new agricultural land. The Tribunal also cited the case of M/s Rajasthan Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO, where it was held that the transfer of land is effective from the date of the agreement to sell if the subsequent sale deed is in furtherance of the agreement. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee satisfied the conditions of Section 54B by substituting the existing agricultural land with new agricultural land. Conclusion: The Tribunal decided that the issue was already addressed on merits in the original order, and the Revenue's request for rectification did not point out any apparent mistake that could be rectified under Section 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 254(2) is limited to rectifying apparent mistakes, not re-evaluating facts and evidence. Consequently, the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
|
