9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f a house property within the stipulated period of section 54(2) i.e., before the extended due date for return under section 139. Assessee technically may have defaulted in not filing the return under section 139(4). But, however, utilized the capital gains for purchase of property before the extended due date under section 139(4). The contention of the revenue that the deposit in the scheme should have been made before the initial due date and not the extended due date is an untenable contention. In view taken by Gauhati High Court in CIT Vs Rajesh Kumar Jalan [ 2006 (8) TMI 126 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that time limit for deposit under the scheme or utilization can be made before due date for filing return under section 139(4). Thus, in view of the legal position, the second objection of the assessing officer also not tenable. Nature of land recorded on the purchase deed is bin Kheti premium patra land - We find merit in the submissions of the ld AR for the assessee that land purchased by assessee is agriculture land and can be used as NA (non-agriculture) subject to premium of payment, which means conditional permission was granted but the land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal. Thus, the period of limitation is to be counted from second week of January 2022. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that assessee has a good case on merit and would suffer prejudice if the delay in filing of assessee s appeal is not condone. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that there is no deliberate or inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and same may be condoned. 3. On the other hand, Ld. Senior Departmental-Representative (Ld. Sr-DR) for the Revenue after going through the affidavit filed by assessee and hearing the plea of Ld. AR for the assessee fairly submits that the Bench may take proper view in accordance with law. 4. I have considered the submission of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. I find that main contention of Ld. AR for the assessee is that assessee came to know about the passing of impugned order only on downloading the order from ITBA portal in second week of January 2022 and took step to file appeal before Tribunal. The assessee has filed appeal before Tribunal on 08.03.2022. Thus, keeping in view that the delay in filing appeal is not deliberate or intentional and there is no inordinate delay. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agricultural product from the assessee s farm directly. The assessee furnished copy of extract 7/12 or certificate from Talati. The reply of assessee was not accepted by Assessing Officer by taking view that no details of agricultural activities were furnished in respect of land sold and no agricultural sell bills, detailed of expenses carrying out agricultural activities were furnished. Even if, stand of assessee that family members of assessee were doing agricultural activities on the selling agricultural land of assessee, even the assessee is not entitled for deduction under section 54 of the Act because agricultural activity should be carried out exclusively by the assessee, his parents, assessee is an Undivided Hindu Family (HUF), for making claim of section 54. The agricultural activities carried out by other family members do not make the assessee eligible for claiming such deduction under section 54 of the Act. The Assessing Officer further held that capital gains earned or sale of agricultural land should be invested in a new agricultural land before filing return of income but in the present case, the assessee failed to file his return of income as per the provision of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see under section 54B on various reasons. On the objection that no details were furnished about agricultural activities, the assessee stated that the assessing officer in para 5.1 has admitted that one of the bill is in the name of Chhaganbhai, who is the co-owner and is party to the sale deed, which itself proves the agriculture activities. The land records clearly show that the land was used for agriculture activities. On the time limit of investment, the assessee submitted that, time limit for making investment under the scheme of the Act does not mean only section 139(1) only, but will mean all sub-sections of section 139. No such condition is prescribed in section 54B and claim cannot be disallowed on this ground. To support his submission, the assessee relied on the decision various High Courts including in CIT Vs Jagruti Aggarwal (339 ITR 610 P H), CIT Vs Jagtar Singh Chawla (259 ITR 388 P H), CIT Vs Rajesh Kumar Jalan ( 286 ITR 274 Gau) and Fatimabai Vs ITO ( 32 DTR 243 Kol). On the objection of assessing officer that there was reference in the purchase deed about bin Kheti premium patra land , the assessee explained that land is agriculture land and can be used as NA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee finally submit that beneficiary provision in the Act should be interpreted liberally and as such the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 54B. the ld AR for the assessee also relied on various case laws, and filed copies thereof, which was relied before ld CIT(A) 11. On the other hand, the ld Sr DR for the revenue submits that the assessing officer while disallowing the deduction under section 54B, clearly held that the assessee does not fulfil the conditions of eligibility of such deduction. The ld Sr DR for the revenue prayed for dismissal of appeal. 12. I have considered the rival submissions of both the ld representative and seen the lower of lower authorities carefully. I also deliberated on various case laws on which the ld AR for the assessee relied. On considering the facts and submissions of parties I find that the assessing officer basically disallowed the deduction under section 54B on three counts, that no bills of expenses are in the name of assessee. I find that the assessing officer himself recorded that the bills are in the name of Chhaganbhai, who is the co-owner and is party to the sale deed dated 12.02.2014, which itself proves the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
