2019 (7) TMI 924 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 54B - Denial of claim for the reason that the part of land was not cultivable - HELD THAT - We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Mahesh Danabhai Patel 2018 (1) TMI 1514 - ITAT PUNE has held that provisions of Sec.54B does not specify that the entire land should be used for cultivation for claiming benefit u/s 54B. It held that if any part of the land is under cultivation for two years immediately two preceding years prior to the date of transfer, it would be sufficient to claim benefit u/s 54B. Before us, Revenue has not placed any contrary binding decision in its support nor has placed any material on record to demonstrate that the aforesaid decision in the case of DCIT Vs. Shri Mahesh Danabhai Patel (supra) has been set aside or stayed by the higher Judicial Authorities. Impact of acceptance of proportionate disallowance before AO - HELD THAT -It is assessee s contention that the statement of AO of the A.R having agreed for disallowance is factually incorrect. In the present case, we are of the view that since the issue on merits is covered in assessee s favour by the decision of Pune ITAT, cited hereinabove, then merely because of admission of disallowance, the assessee cannot be denied the benefit to which he is eligible. Thus, the grounds of assessee are allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Disallowance of proportionate exemption claimed under section 54B of the Income Tax Act.
2. Denial of claim of deduction under section 54B due to land not being cultivable.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of proportionate exemption claimed under section 54B of the Income Tax Act
The appellant contested the disallowance of proportionate exemption of ?10,24,588 claimed under section 54B of the Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that the agricultural land sold was used for agricultural purposes in the two years preceding the date of transfer. The appellant sought deletion of the disallowance made. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the disallowance, stating that the Authorized Representative of the appellant had agreed to the disallowance during the assessment proceedings. However, the appellant disputed this claim, asserting that no opportunity for being heard was granted before the disallowance. The appellant presented evidence to support their case, including the map of the land and 7/12 extracts. The appellant highlighted that even if a part of the land was used for agricultural purposes, the claim of deduction under section 54B should be allowed. The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' decision based on the Authorized Representative's alleged admission. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, citing a precedent that supported the appellant's argument. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction under section 54B, concluding in favor of the appellant.

Issue 2: Denial of claim of deduction under section 54B due to land not being cultivable
The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction under section 54B as the land was deemed not cultivable. The Assessing Officer noted that only a portion of the land had evidence of agricultural activities, while the rest was non-agricultural. The appellant argued that the entire land was one, and crop cultivation on a portion was undisputed. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was established that for claiming benefit under section 54B, it is not necessary for the entire land to be under cultivation. If any part of the land is cultivated for two years preceding the transfer, the benefit can be claimed. The Tribunal found no contrary binding decision or material presented by the Revenue to challenge the precedent cited by the appellant. The Tribunal held that the Authorized Representative's alleged agreement for disallowance did not justify denying the appellant the eligible benefit. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction under section 54B, ruling in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the Assessing Officer to grant the claim of deduction under section 54B of the Income Tax Act.