9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd, it is stated by the petitioner that he has produced chitta, adangal etc., for the relevant period in support of his contention that the subject matter land were used for agricultural purposes two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place. This Court is of the view that the factual aspects raised in this writ petition, need to be considered once again by the first respondent and to decide the matter as to whether the petitioner has satisfied the requirement contemplated under Section 54B, while seeking deduction. Certainly, the reason stated by the Assessing Officer that the purchaser is the builder and therefore, the land is not an agricultural land, cannot be a reason which is in consonance with the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Since the income was meager, the petitioner did not report agricultural income in his Income Tax returns. The petitioner sold the above lands on 24.09.2014 to a third party purchaser and reinvested the sale proceeds in the purchase of lands bearing Survey Nos.2558/1, 2558/2 and 2558/3 at Genguvarpatti Village, Periyakulam Taluk. The petitioner filed his return for the Assessment Year 2015-16 claiming deduction of ₹ 1,73,04,900/- under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The second respondent issued a proceedings dated 11.12.2017 holding that sufficient proof was not produced by the petitioner to prove that agricultural activities were being carried on and that the land was agricultural land. Based on the said proceedings, the th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als produced during the course of the proceedings under Section 264, found that the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence for carrying out agricultural activity, in the land sold by the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was carrying on agricultural activities till the date of sale and in support of the same, the petitioner produced the relevant revenue records before the concerned authorities. Thus, he submitted that the rejection of those documents is not proper, more particularly, when the petitioner has satisfied the requirement under Section 54B, while seeking reduction. 5. The learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for the Revenue o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale, the petitioner has purchased agricultural lands within two years. However, the dispute in this case is not with regard to the second condition. On the other hand, the dispute is that the petitioner did not use the land for agricultural purposes two years immediately preceding the date on which the sale took place. Though, the Revisional Authority while rejecting the revision under Section 264, has stated so, perusal of the order passed by the Assessing Officer would show that he was carried over by the fact that the land was sold to a person, who is a developer and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to benefit under Section 54B. Apart from saying so, the Assessing Officer has given a finding that the assessee co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
