9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bandi were also filed as a proof of the agricultural land being registered in the name of the assessee and, therefore, the ld. CIT (A) was correct in negating the claim of the Assessing Officer that the income of 1,06,62,500/- had to be treated as income from capital gains. Deduction u/s 54B - Held that:- As per revised agreement dated 20.03.2008, the date of possession was shifted to 3.5.2009. He has also noted that the land was finally registered on 28.05.2009 in the name of the assessee and the payments till then were kept by the assessee in the capital gain account scheme. Ld. CIT(A) has also noted that the agreement was made first and the possession was transferred as per the terms of the agreement and that the Assessing Officer had not been able to point out anything adverse or defective in that agreement. The Ld. CIT(A) had also referred to the provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and provisions of section 2(47)(v) applicable to the assessment order in question and has held that the assessee satisfied all the conditions for claiming of deduction u/s 54B of the Act. This factual finding of the Ld. CIT (A) could not be negated by the Ld. Sr. DR during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue of another piece of land in the same area on 20.7.1981 was ₹ 1,64,571/- per acre and, therefore, the value taken at ₹ 80,000/- per acre was appropriate. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the assessee's contention and calculated the indexed cost of acquisition at ₹ 15,21,448/- instead of ₹ 45,53,571/- as declared by the assessee. While doing so the AO relied on the registered sale document of another piece of land which, as per the AO, was sold @ ₹ 50,000/- per acre. The Assessing Officer also treated the income of ₹ 1,06,62,500/- shown as having received from sale of agricultural land by the assessee as long term capital gain as the assessee did not produce any evidence of agricultural land being in his name. The Assessing Officer also disallowed deduction u/s 54B of the Act, amounting to ₹ 30,50,600/- and u/s 54F of the Act amounting to ₹ 57,41,940/-. The assessment was completed at an income of ₹ 2,42,80,390/-. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) who deleted the addition of ₹ 1,28,739,999/- being the difference due to difference in indexed cost o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h is not in the name of assessee do not qualify for the deduction u/s 54F and even without discussing any evidence which may prove that self occupied property actually belongs to the assessee." 5. That the appellant craves for the permission to add, delete or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal." 3. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) had not correctly appreciated the facts of the case while deleting the additions. He read out extensively from the assessment order and submitted that the detailed reasoning applied by the Assessing Officer had been ignored by the Ld. CIT (A) while deleting the additions. It was prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 4. In response, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and submitted that as far as ground no. 1 of the department's appeal is concerned, the Fair Market Value of the land as on 1.4.1981 had been calculated by the Assessing Officer by making a backward calculation from the rates as on 1.4.1987. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the cost inflation index could not be applied in a reverse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Assessing Officer's action of reducing the cost of acquisition and thereby the indexed cost of acquisition could not be sustained as it had no basis. The Ld. CIT (A) has noted that the fact that the copy of registry which the Assessing Officer claimed to reflect the cost per acre at ₹ 50,000/- per acre was never provided to the assessee for his comments and, therefore, the Assessing Officer's reliance on the same was not justified. The Ld. CIT (A) as well as the assessee have also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Jagat Mohan Kapur (supra) as well as order of the Cuttack Special Bench in the case of Heera Lal Lokchandani vs ITO (supra) for holding that the cost inflation index cannot be applied in the reverse direction. The Ld. Departmental Representative, in the course of proceedings before us, could not point out any judgment to the contrary favouring the revenue in this regard. Therefore, in such a circumstance, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT (A) on this issue and we uphold the same. 5.1 As far as second ground regarding agricultural income being treated as long term gains is concerned, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
