9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax was not paid by some farmers of Faridabad on account of transfer of land to M/s BPTP Ltd. and its group concerns. The list of such farmers who had sold their land to the said concern was also provided. On the basis of this information, a list of such persons of Ballabhgarh Tehsil as mentioned in the list was obtained from Sub-Registrar, Ballabhgarh and as per the said list, the assessee had received Rs. 5,86,43,750/- on 12.06.2006 as sale consideration of his land from M/s Fragrance Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. As the assessee had not filed his return of income declaring the capital gain arising out of sale consideration, reasons were duly recorded on 13.03.2009 and a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer also disallowed deduction u/s 54B of the Act, amounting to Rs. 30,50,600/- and u/s 54F of the Act amounting to Rs. 57,41,940/-. The assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 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 Rs. 1,28,739,999/- being the difference due to difference in indexed cost of acquisition. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) also directed deletion of addition of Rs. 1,06,62,500/- on account of agricultural income being treated as long term capital gain. The Assessing Officer was also directed to allow the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 54B of the Act. The Assessing Officer was also directed to allow a further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me by the assessee. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in allowing deduction amounting to Rs. 19,00,000/- u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of investment in purchasing of two plots in the name of his children and in construction on the said plots even though the assessee did not satisfy the conditions as laid down in section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein deduction for the amount spent on construction of any property which 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 pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/- per acre, and on which the Assessing Officer had relied and, therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) had rightly deleted the addition. 4.1 With regard to ground no.2, the Ld. AR submitted that it was undisputed that the land existed in the name of the assessee and the copies of Jambandi 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 Rs. 1,06,62,500/- had to be treated as income from capital gains. 4.2 On ground no. 3, the Ld. AR submitted that as far as claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act was concerned, the assessee had got the agricultural land registered in his name on 28.5.2009. An ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 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 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o find out any factual error in the findings as recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) and, therefore, there is no reason for us to interfere on this issue also and the same is being left undisturbed by us. 5.2 As far as ground no. 3 of the appeal is concerned, the ld. CIT (A) has discussed the issue in Para 12 of the order wherein he has noted 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 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
