9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the earlier year, it would be sufficient for compliance of the provisions of section 54B of the Act. Similarly, the fact that part of the land could not be used for agricultural purpose but grass was grown owing to the conditions of drought does not disentitle the assessee as the land was held for agricultural purposes only. In the light of these decisions, we hold that the reasoning of lower authorities cannot be appreciated. Accordingly, the findings of lower authorities are reversed. Appeal of assessee allowed. - ITA No.168/PUN/2019 And ITA No.169/PUN/2019 - - - Dated:- 13-7-2022 - Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member And Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Sanket Milind Joshi For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after claiming deduction u/s 54B of the Act. The Assessing Officer denied the claim primarily for two reasons; first reason being that the land was not used for agricultural purposes in the two years immediately preceding the sale and secondly, the only part of the land was cultivated during the immediately preceding two previous years, rejecting the contention of the appellant that it is necessary that the land should be used for agricultural purposes for whole of the two years and the entire land was used for agricultural activity as the assessee had grown fodder grass on the part of the land as is evident from 7/12 extract. Being aggrieved by the said addition, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4B of the Act. The conditions prescribed to claim the benefit of exemption under the provisions of section 54B are that the agricultural land sold as a capital asset, used by the assessee during the period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer for agricultural purpose. The Assessing Officer had denied the exemption u/s 54B on the grounds that the agricultural land sold was not used for agricultural purpose for two years preceding the date of sale as the same was held only for a period of 22 months and some part of the land was used for growing grass. The Co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Majid Khan Nisar Khan vs. ITO (supra) and Ramesh Narhari Jakhadi vs. ITO (supra) held that the reference to the term two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
