9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid by the appellant for purchase of new residence - Held that:- The assessee has deposited a sum of ₹ 6.50 lacs on 05.07.2011, however due to clerical error the appellant has shown this figure at ₹ 704772/-. Further, the assessee could not point out the exact payment about this whether related to the acquisition of house. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authorities. Hence, the claim of the assessee u/s 54F to the extent of ₹ 650000/- has rightly been rejected. Assessee stated as has deposited a sum of ₹ 20.50 lacs in capital gain account scheme however AO has granted deduction of only ₹ 329100/- - Held that:- Allahabad High Court in case of Ranjit Narang Vs. CIT [2009 (7) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The ld CIT(A) has erred both in facts and in law in confirming the disallowing of deduction of ₹ 1422250/- claimed by the appellant under the provisions of section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.2 The ld CIT(A) has erred in facts in holding that the agricultural land sold by the appellant was not used for agricultural purposes. 2. Ground No. 2 2.1 The ld CIT(A) has erred both in facts and in law in confirming partial disallowance of deduction claimed by the appellant under the provisions of section 54F of the Income Tax Act. 2.2 That the ld CIT(A) has erred both in facts and in law in not allowing deduction under section 54F of the Act in relation to sum of ₹ 350000/- paid by the appellant on 05.07.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition of ₹ 116973/- resulting into long term capital gain of ₹ 7140527/-. From this it claimed deduction u/s 54B of ₹ 1422250/- and deduction u/s 54F of ₹ 2386047/- and deposited ₹ 20.50 lacs in capital gain account scheme and offered total taxable long term capital gain of ₹ 1282230/-. The ld Assessing Officer held that as the land sold was not used for agricultural purposes and as the assessee has not filed any documentary evidence whether the land was used for agricultural purposes, he denied deduction u/s 54B of ₹ 1422250/-. Further, and further he reduced the amount invested for purchase of house the purpose of deduction u/s 54F. He further held that the amount of deposits in capital gain acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubewell for carrying on agricultural activities. Further, assessee has given the agricultural record of Tehsil for July 2008 to June 2011 to support his contention. Above facts submitted before us are not disputed by the ld DR. The above agricultural record produced before us does show at least with respect to Fasil year 1416, 1417 and 1418 the details of agricultural produce. In view of this it is apparent that land sold by the assessee shown in the sale deed was an agricultural land and further in view of the evidences produced by the assessee of agricultural produce for the relevant period which is not controverted by revenue then, assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54B of the Act as the capital asset being land which was used for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 332 wherein, it has been held that if the amount deposited is not utilized for the purposes of acquisition in the house property then such shortfall shall be chargeable to tax in the year in which the period of three years from the date of the transfer of the original asset expires. Therefore, the assessee must be granted deduction of deposit subject to time limit and unutilized amount shall be charged to tax in different year as provided under the proviso to section 54F(4) of the Act. Therefore, the ld Assessing Officer is not correct in charging the sum of unutilized amount in Assessment Year 2012-13 but it is chargeable to tax in later assessment year. Therefore, the AO is directed to grant deduction to the assessee and take remedial ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
