9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 143(1)(a) of the Act by order dated 31-1-2000. Later on the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had sold agricultural land and the capital gain on the same was not declared in the return of income. The assessee had appended a note below the capital Account wherein it was mentioned that capital gain on sale of agricultural land is not leviable since the amount has been reinvested on purchase of agricultural land. The land has been purchased within the stipulated time. The Assessing Officer held that since the capital gain on sale of agricultural land was not included in the return of income, the income has escaped assessment and hence he issued notice under section 148. The action of reassessment was upheld by Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit objection. As rightly contended by the Ld. Departmental Representative since original assessment was completed under section 143(1)(a), it cannot be said that any opinion was formed therein. The re-assessment is therefore not on the basis of change of opinion. Thus, ground No. 1 is to be dismissed. 6. In the ground No. 2 the assessee challenges denial of deduction under section 54B of the Act. In the re-assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer on the basis of following decisions held that the assessee being an HUF is not entitled to deduction under section 54B. Those cases are :- 1. CIT v. G.K. Devarajulu [1991] 191 ITR 211 (Mad.); 2. CIT v. R. Vijay Kumar [1995] 214 ITR 483 (Mad.); 3. Pravin Chand Mohin Kumar v. CIT [1994] 208 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 9-2-2007] & in the case of ITO v. Bhim Singh [IT Appeal No. 1739 (Delhi) of 2003, dated 28-2-2005. 9. Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the following cases :- 1. Ravindra Gunvantal Shah v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 995 (Guj.); 2. Gopal Rameshwardas v. Addtt. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 980 (M.P.); 3. Addl. CIT v. Bhatia Mahajan Construction [1984] 149 ITR 148 (Raj.); 4. Anam Venkata Krishna Reddy v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 425 (A.P.). However she fairly submitted that all those cases pertained to deduction under section 54 and not under section 54B of the Act. 10. We have carefully considered relevant facts and argument advanced. We have also considered the case laws on the subject. Deduction under section 54B is available where the capital g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aimed under section 54B and not under section 54 of the Act. In the cases relied by ld. Counsel for the assessee in the case of Bhim Singh, the Tribunal held as under :- "2. The first ground in this appeal, is directed against the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), allowing the assessee deduction under section 54-B. The basis on which the assessee is not being considered by revenue to be entitled to deduction under section 54-B is that the status of the assessee is HUF and not individual because the lands sold were apparent of ancestral nature. During the course of heating before us, the learned Departmental Representative argued that deduction us 54-B should not be given to an assessee not being an individual. He argued th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
