9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OUNTANT MEMBER:- These two appeals filed by assessee for A.Y. 2008-09 2010-11, arise from order of the CIT(A), in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act . ITA No. 1335/Ahd/2012 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1.1 That the id. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming disallowance of deduction for ₹ 55,40,000/- claimed U/s. 54B of the Act, The ld, CIT(Appeals) has misconstrued the provisions of Sec.54B of the Act. 1.2 The appellant respectfully submits that he has claimed deduction of ₹ 55,40,000/- U/s 54B of the Act. The appellant submits that the provisions of Sec. 54B applies to assessee and the word assessee includes HUF. Therefore, deduction U/s. 54B of the Act was rightly claimed by the appellant. 1.3 The appellant therefore submits that deduction U/s. 54B of the Act, be allowed of ₹ 55,40,000/- as claimed in the return of income. 2.1 The id, CIT(Appeal) has erred in confirming deduction u/s.54EC to only ₹ 50, 00, 000/- as against claimed by assessee for Rs, 1,00,00,000/-. 2.2 The appellant respectfully submits that he has invested ₹ 50,00,000/- U/s. 54EC of the Act on 31.03.2007 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was disallowed by the assessing officer stating that no agricultural activities were carried out on this land as evident from letter from the Talati, Danilimda Taluka, City Ahmedabad. 5. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the appeal of the assessee holding that for getting benefit of section 54B of the Act, the land should have been used for agricultural purposes which was one of the basic conditions for allowing deduction/s. 54B of the Act. Since the land was not used for agricultural purpose as per report of the Talati, therefore, claim of deduction u/s. 54B was disallowed. 6. During the course of appellate proceedings ld. authorized representative of the assessee fairly pointed out that on identical issue in the case of coowners on the similar facts, the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of Balkrishna P. Trivedi vide ITA No. 1225/Ahd/2013, 997/Ahd/2016 and ITA 1229/Ahd/2016 dated 31-01-2020 and ITA No. 1226/Ahd/2013 651/Ahd/2016 in the case of Riddhish B Trivedi dated 17-01-2020 have decided the issue of allowability of deduction u/s. 54B of the Act against the assessee. 7. In the light of the observation made by the Co-ordinate Bench in the other co-owners case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.03.2007. The learned A.R. has argued before me that the cap is on investment is made applicable for investment made on or after 01.04.2007. Further, the cap is for ₹ 50,00,000/- during any financial year. The above provision is applicable with respect to investment made on or after 01.04.2007 only. Further the ceiling limit of ₹ 50,00,000/- is for investment in financial year only. The ceiling limit is not for Assessee or not for total deduction eligible under above section. Therefore the interpretation would be that the Assessee can make investment of ₹ 50,00,000/- in one financial year. If the period of investment available to Assessee extends in two financial years, then the Assessee can make investment of ₹ 50,00,000/- each in both financial years and can claim deduction accordingly. The learned A.R. has also relied on circular no.359 date 10.05.1983. The copy of circular is filled before me. Paragraph-2 of the above circular reads as under: On consideration of the matter in consultation with Ministry of Law, it is felt that the foregoing interpretation would go against the purpose and spirit of the section. As the section contemplates investment of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o interfere in the matter. 10. Ground No.2 of the assessee s appeal is accordingly allowed. Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench as cited above on similar facts and identical issue, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. Ground No. 3.1 to 3.2 9. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the counsel has pointed out that identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee vide ITA No. 997/Ahd/2016 in the case of Balkrishna P. Trivedi HUF after following the case of other co-owner vide ITA No. 651/Ahd/2016 order dated 07-01-2020. The relevant part of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench vide ITA No. 997/Ahd/2016 in the case of Balkrishna T. Trivedi (HUF) supra is reproduced as under:- 11. Ground No.3 concerns disallowance of brokerage. As pointed out on behalf of the assessee, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee in ITA No. 651/Ahd/2016 order dated 17.01.2020. In parity, the issue is decided in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench on similar facts and identical issue in respect of co-owners, this ground of appeal is allowed. ITA No. 911/Ahd/2015 assessment year 2010-11 10. The asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
