9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT CHENNAI] held that there is no condition in section 54F that building plan of residential house should be approved by Municipal Corporation or any other competent authority. Also in CIT Vs P V Narasimhan [ 1989 (9) TMI 58 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that utilisation of sale proceed of one house to construct first floor after demolishing old structure of second house, the assessee would be entitled for exemption under section 54F. Thus, considering the above legal view by the Tribunal and High Court of Madras, we are of the view that the view taken by assessing officer in passively allowing relief to the assessee on the deduction/ exemption under section 54F is not erroneous Deduction u/s 54B, we find that the only objection raise by the assessing officer is that the assessee purchased new agriculture land prior to transfer of old agriculture land. We find that the sale consideration paid by the assessee is from the advance of Rs. 25.00 lakhs received on execution of agreement. This fact is clearly discernible from the bank statement of the assessee - We find that the combination of this bench in Atul K Patel [ 2021 (12) TMI 689 - ITAT SURAT] by following the decision of Prav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed her return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 31/03/2018 declaring income of Rs. 27,72,370/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny under Computer Audited Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for examination of deduction/exemption of capital gain, capital gain/loss on sale of property and investment in immovable property. The assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer in accepting the returned income vide assessment order dated 15/12/2018 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, recorded that the assessee sold agricultural land at Revenue Survey No. 21/1, Block No. 49, Village- Saroli, Taluka, Choryasi, District -Surat for sale consideration of Rs. 4.51 crores on 12/10/2015. On verification of capital gain, it was noticed that the assessee reduced her share of capital gain by Rs. 20.00 lacs on account of life time interest of legal heir Smt. Pushpaben Maganbhai, mother of assessee. To support such contention, the assessee filed notarized agreement /family settlement dated 25/11/2010. On further verification of said agreement, the Assessing Officer recorded that as per agreement, the family members of assessee divided t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h required revision. 4. The assessee filed his reply dated 25/03/2021. On the deduction claimed under Section 54B, the assessee submitted that she sold agricultural land at Block No. 49, Saroli, Choryasi, Surat for a consideration of Rs. 2.25 crores (as her part). The part of the consideration was received by assessee on 14/10/2014 by way of cheque No. 118 of Rs. 25.00 lacs. Such part of consideration was used for purchase of agricultural lands on 18/10/2014 and 19/11/2014. Cheque No. 271188 of Rs. 1,05,735/- was paid for sale consideration for purchase of agricultural land at Block No. 273, Ambheti on 18/10/2014. Again cheque No. 271189 of Rs. 6,92,000/- was paid for purchase of agricultural land at Block No. 281, Ambheti and on 19/11/2014, cheque No. 271190 of Rs. 6,63,150/- was paid for purchase of agricultural land at Block No. 280, Ambheti. Copy of bank pass book/ account was furnished. The assessee further stated that she sold agricultural land situated in Saroli, Surat wherein new textile Mills and other business activities were carried out and there was an Air and Water pollution around the nearby area, so it was difficult to carry out farming activities in such environm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n able to buy agricultural land in State of Gujarat. Such contention of assessee is devoid of merit in view of specific provision of Section 54B. On the issue of deduction under Section 54F, the ld. Pr.CIT noted that the assessee furnished copy of construction agreement with one Shri Rameshbhai Ramsinghbhai Prajapati. Ongoing through such construction agreement, first party is Shri Aakash Fakirbhai Patel and amount of construction work was Rs. 88.00 lacs. In the balance sheet of assessee as on 31/03/2015, the value of house Indraprakash Row House was shown at Rs. 3.51 lacs as on 31/06/2016. The value was shown at Rs. 1.09 crores, the value of construction of house should be Rs. 1.05 crores. The assessee has not furnished copy of approved plan from Town Planning/Municipal Corporation for construction of new house. Details furnished by the assessee are neither sufficient nor relevant. The Assessing Officer has not made necessary enquiry. Non-application of mind by Assessing officer and providing relief without making enquiry relates the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld. Pr.CIT referred the various case laws to strengthen his view and held that Expl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 54F of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer examined both the issues thoroughly and took reasonable plausible and legally sustainable view. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order in para 3 of assessment order has recorded certain facts about the examination of such issue. The Assessing Officer only disallowed Rs. 20.00 lacs from taxable capital gain which clearly shows that the Assessing Officer applied his mind on the issue and passed the assessment order. If the ld. Pr.CIT is not agreeing with the assessment order which is change of opinion on the issue and no revision under Section 263 is permissible on merely change of opinion. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessment order is not at all erroneous and legally sustainable order. 8. The ld. AR for the assessee on the deduction under Section 54F submits that the assessee received Rs. 25.00 lacs on 14/10/2014. The advance received as part of sale consideration was invested for purchase of three agricultural piece of land. Two agricultural lands were purchased on 18/10/2014 and third one on 19/11/2014. The assessee received part of sale consideration through cheque, copy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and unambiguous. The deduction under Section 54B of the Act is only available after transfer of agriculture land by assessee. On the issue of deduction under Section 54F of the Act, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that on page No. 3 of impugned order, the ld. Pr.CIT clearly held that the assessee claimed deduction merely on the basis of agreement. The assessee again claimed such deduction on renovation of house owned by assessee. If it a renovation or construction, it is not clear from the reply of the assessee before the ld. Pr CIT. The ld CIT-DR for the revenue submits that before revising the assessing order ld Pr CIT has given his clear finding that the assessing officer has not examined both the issues and allow relief to the assessee. 11. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the contents of assessment order as well as the order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT which is impugned before us. We find that the case of assessee was selected for examination/ verification of deduction/ exemption of capital gain and investment in immovable property. We find that assessing officer during the assessment, issued show cause notice dated 20/11/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tchen equipment and Rs. 71,000/- in solar equipment and furniture fitting of Rs. 7,66,971/- aggregating of Rs. 1.17 crores. We find that coordinate bench of Chennai Tribunal in B Siva Subramanian Vs ITO (supra) held that there is no condition in section 54F that building plan of residential house should be approved by Municipal Corporation or any other competent authority. Hon ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs P V Narasimhan (supra) held that utilisation of sale proceed of one house to construct first floor after demolishing old structure of second house, the assessee would be entitled for exemption under section 54F. Thus, considering the above legal view by the Tribunal and High Court of Madras, we are of the view that the view taken by assessing officer in passively allowing relief to the assessee on the deduction/ exemption under section 54F is not erroneous. Adverting to the other issue of deduction under section 54B, we find that the only objection raise by the assessing officer is that the assessee purchased new agriculture land prior to transfer of old agriculture land. We find that the sale consideration paid by the assessee is from the advance of Rs. 25.00 lakhs received on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
