9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeals by this common order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee sold his agricultural land on 20.09.2016. The assessee deposited the sale consideration in the capital gains account and thereafter claimed deduction u/s. 54F and 54B of the Act on account of purchase of another piece agricultural land within two years from the date of sale. The assessee also claimed deduction u/s. 54F of the Act on account of a purchase of a house within stipulated time period. The Assessing Officer (in short, "the AO"), however, did not look into the aforesaid claim of the assessee and passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 11.12.2019. Thereafter, the assessee moved a rectification application u/s. 154 of the Act to the AO stating that his claim relating to deduction u/s. 54B of the Act and 54F has not been considered by the AO. Upon the said application of the assessee, the AO passed an order u/s. 154 of the Act on 6.1.2020, whereby, the AO allowed the claim of the assessee u/s. 54B of the Act at a lesser amount i.e. at Rs. 8000000/- as against Rs. 9590000/-, whereas, the Ld. AO denied the claim in relation to the deduction u/s. 54F of the Income Tax Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30/03/2022, against which, the assessee has come in appeal before us vide ITA No. 440/Chandi/2022. 4. From the facts noted above, there are two issues involved in the appeal against revision order passed u/s. 263 of the Act, firstly, whether the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s. 54B of the Income Tax Act and secondly, whether the AO has rightly allowed the claim of depreciation on buses to the assessee. Whereas, in the appeal relating to order passed u/s. 154 of the Act, the issues are whether the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s. 54F of the Act and further about the quantum of the amount of claim u/s. 54B of the Act. Issue of deduction u/s. 54B of the Act.-This issue has been raised by the Ld. PCIT in his order passed u/s. 263 of the Act observing that the assessee had not deposited the proceeds and the sale of land into the capital gain account in time and that further the AO has exceeded his jurisdiction in giving relief to the assessee in this respect in an order passed u/s. 154 of the Act. 5. We have considered the rival contentions of the Ld. Counsel of the parties. The sole ground on which the Ld. PCIT is of the view that the assessee is not entitled to deductio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e residential house. This provision, in our view, has been enacted to gather the real intention of the assessee to invest the amount in purchase/construction of a residential house. As per the provisions of sub-section(1) of section 54, the assessee has been given two years' time to purchase and three years' time to construct a residential house subsequent to the date of transfer of the original asset. At the time of the assessment proceedings, subsequent to the date of transfer of the original asset, an assessee may claim that he will invest the amount in purchase/construction of a new house, though not have taken any steps towards that direction till then. In such a scenario, there should not be any method or procedure before the Assessing officer through which he could gather the real intention of the assessee, as the assessee, by saying so, may delay the taxation of the capital gains earned at least for three years from the date of transfer of original asset. Hence, sub-section (2) puts an embargo to the assessee to casually claim the benefit of section 54 at the time of assessment, without being any act done to show his real intention of purchasing/constructing a new r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agricultural land within the stipulated period. Moreover, the facts of the present case are on better footing as otherwise, in this case, the assessee had deposited the proceeds of the sale deed in the capital gains account, though, a little bit belatedly as per the observation of the Ld. CIT(A), whereas, the assessee had claimed that he had deposited the sale deed proceeds within due date. In view of the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal (supra), since the assessee had purchased the agricultural land within the stipulated period and also produced the evidence of the same at the time of assessment proceedings and further there was no doubt about the intention of the assessee from very beginning to invest the said amount for purchase of agricultural land, therefore, the view of the Ld. PCIT is not correct in exercising her revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act on this issue. 6. Claim of Depreciation on buses: Exercise of revision Jurisdiction by the PCIT: The Ld. PCIT in this respect has noted that the assessee has mentioned that he is in the business of plying buses. That the assessee during the year had purchased one new bus for Rs. 1050000/- That the assessee o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
