9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 924X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upport nor has placed any material on record to demonstrate that the aforesaid decision in the case of DCIT Vs. Shri Mahesh Danabhai Patel (supra) has been set aside or stayed by the higher Judicial Authorities. Impact of acceptance of proportionate disallowance before AO - HELD THAT:-It is assessee s contention 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. Thus, the grounds of assessee are allowed. - ITA No.1295/PUN/2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that agricultural land which was sold was used for agriculture purposes in two years immediately preceding the date of its transfer. The Appellant prays that disallowance made of ₹ 10,24,588/- may please be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 and on the basis of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance without appreciating the fact that observations in assessment order that Authorised Representative of the appellant was confronted and he agreed for the disallowance, are wrong and contrary to the facts on records. No opportunity of being heard was given to appellant by the learned AO. The Appellant prays that d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authorised Representative of the assessee had agreed for proportionate disallowance at the time of assessment proceedings and therefore he cannot revert back. She thus upheld the order of AO. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now before us. 5. Before us, Ld.A.R. reiterated the submission made before AO and Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that neither the A.R. of the assessee was confronted nor his A.R. agreed for proportionate disallowance. He further submitted that AO did not grant opportunity of being heard before making disallowance of proportionate exemption u/s 54B of the Act and thereby violated the principles of natural justice. In support of his aforesaid contentions, he pointed to copy of submissions made b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of lower authorities. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the denial of claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act for the reason that the land was not cultivable. We find that the reason for denying the claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act was for the reason that out of the total area of 1 hectare 12R, agricultural activities were carried out on a portion of the land and there was no evidence of crop grown on the balance portion of the land. Before us, it is assessee s submission that the entire land is one land and the fact that crop was grown in portion of land is not disputed. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
