9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 924X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25.02.2014 declaring total income at Rs. 2,76,967/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter, assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dt.08.12.2015 and the total income was determined at Rs. 13,01,560/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A) who vide order dated 01.03.2017 (in appeal No.Nsk/CIT(A)-1/588/2015-16) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds : "1. On the basis of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of proportionate exemption of Rs. 10,24,588/- claimed u/s 54B of the I.T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of Talathi of Titoli, AO noticed that out of the total area of 1 hectare 12 R, rice was grown only on 0.20 R piece of land and the balance land of 0.81 R was non agricultural land. AO noted that no documentary evidence for carrying out any agricultural activities on the aforesaid land was brought on record. AO further noted that the Authorised Representative of the assessee agreed for proportionate disallowance. AO accordingly worked out the investments at Rs. 10,24,588/- being not allowable u/s 54B of the Act and disallowed the same. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who upheld the order of AO by noting the fact that the Authorised Representative of the assessee had agreed for proportionate disa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icultural purpose by the assessee then assessee is eligible for claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act and in support of his aforesaid contention, he placed reliance on the decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Shri Mahesh Danabhai Patel (ITA No.1534/PUN/2015 order dated 31.01.2018). He therefore submitted that the AO was not justified in denying the claim of deduction. Ld. D.R. on the other hand, supported the order of AO and Ld.CIT(A). He further submitted that as the authorized representative of the assessee admitted before AO for the proportionate disallowance, the assessee now cannot take a different stand. He thus supported the order of lower authorities. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention that the statement of AO of the A.R having agreed for disallowance is factually incorrect. In the present case, we are of the view that since the issue on merits is covered in assessee's favour by the decision of Pune ITAT, cited hereinabove, then merely because of admission of disallowance, the assessee cannot be denied the benefit to which he is eligible. We therefore following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Mahesh Danabhai Patel (supra) are of the view that the AO was not justified in denying the claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act and we therefore direct the AO to deduct the claim. Thus, the grounds of assessee are allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order prono ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
