9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the sale took place. ii) That the assessee has, within a period of two years after that date i.e. when the sale was completed, purchased any other land for agricultural purpose. We set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to comply with our directions as herein above stated and thereafter, shall adjudicate the matter after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.1319/PUN/2015 - - - Dated:- 1-2-2019 - Shri R.S. Syal, VP And Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM For the Assessee : Shri Kishor Phadke For the Revenue : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from salary, house property and capital gain and other sources. During the year under consideration, the assessee has declared income from capital gains, on which he claimed the deduction u/s.54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) by investing the amount of capital gain by purchasing agricultural land. The Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act denied the deduction claimed u/s.54B of the Act which resulted in to the addition of ₹ 60,68,199/- to the assessee s total income. With the result, the Assessing Officer assessed the assessee s total income at ₹ 78,23,313/- as against his returned total income of ₹ 18,15,114/-. 3. The Assessing Officer on perusal of the docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... followed by the Assessing Officer and that sufficient opportunity of hearing to substantiate the claim of the assessee was not allowed to him. The second limb of submissions of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was that only relying on 7/12 extract issued by Talathi, the Assessing Officer has come to the conclusion that land was not used for agricultural purpose instead of making any physical verification. Thereafter, the assessee relied on certain case laws and submitted that even if a part of the land was actually not used for agricultural activities still such land holds the character of agricultural land even though the income was not derived. To substantiate the land as agricultural land, the assessee relied upon the follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct satisfaction should not be taken rather detailed physical verification has to be done. Hence, Ld. AR of the assessee has prayed that in view of the additional evidences filed, the matter may be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for verification and re adjudication of the same. 8. The Ld. DR did not object to the said prayer of the Ld. AR. 9. We have perused the case records, heard the rival contentions and also analyzed the facts and circumstances in the case. In this case, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s.54B of the Act. In order to claim such deduction, legal ingredient is that the land should have been used for agricultural purpose for two years prior to the date of transfer. The Revenue Authorities have relied on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
