9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2020 - - - Dated:- 9-6-2023 - Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member And Shri Arun Khodpia, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri R.B Doshi, CA For the Revenue : None ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-II, Raipur dated 23.01.2020, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O. u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short Act ), dated 26.12.2016 for A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the submissions made by appellant vide letter 26.12.2019 in totality and dismissing of the appeal without considering the submissions of the appellant. The action of CIT(A) dismissing the appeal is arbitrary, unlawful and not justified. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the A.O denying deduction u/s. 54B without appreciating the facts of the case properly and judiciously. The conclusion drawn by the A.O and upheld by the CIT(A) is not justified. 3. Ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a report dated 20.12.2016 that was obtained by him u/s. 133(6) of the Act from the Patwari, wherein, it was stated by him that the land in question was situated within a distance of km from the local limits of Raipur Municipal Corporation. 4. On being called up to put forth an explanation as to why the gain on the transfer of the aforesaid agricultural land may not be brought to tax, it was claim of the assessee that as he had purchased new agricultural lands for a consideration of Rs. 62.46 lacs (approx.) [out of the aforesaid sale consideration of Rs. 69.04 lacs], therefore, he was entitled for deduction u/s. 54B of the Act as regards the said fresh investments, as under: Village Agricultural land purchased in the name of Khasara No. Date of purchase Amount Rakhi In the name of Ram Kumar Sahu 246 27.02.2012 33,64,046/- Alekhunta In the name of Ganpat Sahu 273/2 26.05.2012 2,52,808/- Alekhunta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 26.05.2012 (Khasara No. 273/2 at village Alekhunta), 21.05.2012 (Khasara No. 794 at village Bakhara), 21.05.2012 (Khasara No. 21.05.2012 at village Siltara),. Total of Rs. 9,02,398/- , whereas , the agricultural land situated in village- Sejbahar, was sold on 25.07.2012 i.e. subsequent to the purchases of agricultural lands. Further, the assessee has purchased agricultural land at village- Semra on 03.08.2015 i.e. after the two year from the date of agricultural land sold. In view of the above, the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not acceptable for the above said land. Accordingly, the A.O on the basis of his aforesaid observations computed the long term capital gain (LTCG) on the aforementioned sale transaction at Rs. 49,51,437/-. 5. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without any success. 6. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 7. As the Ld. Departmental Representative ( DR for short) despite having been intimated about the hearing of the appeal had neither put up an appearance nor sought for any adjournm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessment vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 26.12.2016. 11. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the Ld. AR had submitted that though the assessee had assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O for framing of the impugned assessment de-hors issuance of a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act before the CIT(Appeals), but the latter had failed to deal with the said aspect. Our attention was drawn by the Ld. AR to a letter dated 26.12.2019 that was filed by the assessee in the course of the proceedings before the CIT(Appeals), wherein it was categorically stated by the assessee that no notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was ever issued by the A.O for the year under consideration. It was averred by the Ld. AR that now when the assessee vide the ground of appeal No.1 r.w. his written submissions that were filed with the CIT(A), had specifically assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O for framing of the impugned assessment, therefore, the latter had grossly erred in law and the facts of the case in not adverting to and adjudicating the same. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the impugned assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
