9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 241 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 54B - DR rejected the exemption as assessee has not purchased the land in his own name and the purchase deed is in the name of the wife of the assessee - HELD THAT - It is an undisputed fact that the assessee s share including cheque and cash. The purchase of the agricultural land was in the same financial year i.e. 2009-10 and the purchase deed dated 27.04.2010 is in the name of assessee s wife. This fact was also not disputed. The amount given to the seller was from the assessee which can be seen from the documents provided by the assessee during the assessment proceedings as well as before the CIT(A). The assessee has demonstrated that the amount was paid in cheque and remaining amount was paid on various dates in cash. The remand report is solely relying on the statement of the Notary but the actual transaction was not disputed by the AO as well as the CIT(A). Thus, the claim made by the assessee that of deduction u/s 54B was justifiable as the purchase was made in the name of assessee s wife for which the assessee has paid the entire - Therefore, the CIT(A) was not right in denying the said claim. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues involved:
The appeal against the order passed by CIT(A)-7, Ahmedabad for the Assessment Year 2010-11 is filed by the Assessee. Grounds of Appeal: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the Assessing Officer's computation of total income, which differed from the income declared by the Appellant. 2. Disallowance of Rs.46,23,198 under section 54B of the I.T. Act, 1961 was made by the Assessing Officer, contested by the Assessee. 3. The Commissioner held that the appellant is not entitled to claim deduction under section 54B of the Act, leading to a direction to withdraw the deduction given by the AO. 4. The Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction by issuing directions on unraised issues. 5. Allegation of indirectly enhancing assessment without statutory notice under section 251(2) of the Act. 6. Failure to consider the affidavit of legal heirs of the sellers. 7. Direction to the AO to inform the Sub-registrars of Government of Gujarat about the sale and purchase of agricultural lands. 8. Alternative claim that the amount should be treated as a capital receipt or cash credits with explained sources. Judgment Details: The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.46,23,198 claimed under Section 54B. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and withdrew the deduction granted by the AO. The Assessee sold agricultural land and reinvested in land owned by the wife, leading to the dispute. The Ld. AR argued for the Assessee, highlighting the sale deed details and the purchase in the wife's name. The Ld. DR supported the Assessing Officer's decision. The Tribunal found the Assessee's claim justifiable as the purchase was in the wife's name, with funds provided by the Assessee. The CIT(A) erred in denying the claim, and the appeal of the Assessee was allowed. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, emphasizing the validity of the claim under Section 54B due to the purchase being in the wife's name with funds from the Assessee.
|
