DILIP SADASHIV BORATE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(5), PUNE

आदेश / ORDER

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM :

These two appeals preferred by the different assessees emanates from

the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-13, Pune dated 21.03.2018 for the assessment

year 2009-10 as per grounds of appeal on record.

appeal. That with regard to this delay, the Ld. AR of the assessee filed

condonation petition along with affidavit stating reasons for such delay in

filing the appeal before us. We have perused the condonation petition and the

affidavit along with reasons for delay. We are convinced with the justification

rendered by the assessee through these documents. We condone the delay

and proceed to hear the appeal on merits.

that the facts and issues in both the cases are similar. Hence, these cases

were heard together. Since the facts common, issues similar, they are

disposed of vide this consolidated order.

We would take ITA No.1004/PUN/2018 as lead case.

is that the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by assessee

u/s.54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

The Ld. CIT(Appeals) on the other hand, has observed that application

u/s. 54B of the Act is not relevant since as per his observation, the new

3 ITA Nos. 1004 & 1005/PUN/2018 A.Y.2009-10

agricultural land was purchased by the assessee prior to the sale of old land,

thereby making the assessee ineligible for claiming deduction u/s.54B of the

Act. Therefore, on different footings and reasoning, the findings of the

Revenue Authorities were that the assessee was not entitled for claiming

deduction u/s.54B of the Act.

submitted all the relevant documentary evidences before the Assessing Officer

to justify that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s.54B of the Act. They

have submitted the evidence to state that the land which was sold was

agricultural land and that two years prior to the sale of such land and the

agricultural activities were being carried out and even the land which was

purchased subsequently out of the sale proceeds of the first land that was

also agricultural land. In spite of these evidences provided to the Assessing

Officer, the claim of deduction was summarily dismissed and assessment was

completed. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) prima

facie observed that the assessee was not entitled for deduction u/s.54B of the

Act since the assessee purchased new agricultural land prior to sale of old

land meaning thereby the new land was purchased not from sale

proceeds/consideration received from old land and therefore, deduction

u/s.54B of the Act was not allowable.

and specific findings, the Revenue Authorities have rejected all the evidences

submitted before them and have cause grave injustice for not allowing

deduction u/s.54B of the Act as claimed by the assessee.

4 ITA Nos. 1004 & 1005/PUN/2018 A.Y.2009-10

ordinate Authorities.

have also analyzed the facts and circumstances in this case. The issue before

us, is entirely on factual parameters when on one hand, the assessee claims

that he is entitled for deduction u/s.54B of the Act and has furnished various

documentary evidences like copy of sale deed, purchase deed, bank

statement, copy of agreement of land purchased, 7/12 extract showing that

the agricultural activities have been carried in the land during two years

immediately preceding the date of sale. These facts are not disputed before

us. The Assessing Officer on the other hand, as evident in his order, does not

agree that the agricultural activities were conducted in the land and that land

was agricultural land since no bills/receipts were produced by the assessee.

Similarly, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that deduction u/s.54B of the Act is

not allowable as per reasons recorded in his order.

That none of the Revenue Authorities have brought out any factual

details or analysis of the evidences furnished before them so as to pronounce

whether those evidences furnished by the assessee were correct or not and

whether the validity and correctness of those evidences could be relied upon.

Nothing has been stated either by the Assessing Officer or by the Ld.

CIT(Appeals), regarding the examination of these evidences furnished vis-à-vis

the claim of deduction u/s.54B of the Act by the assessee.

restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for detailed factual

5 ITA Nos. 1004 & 1005/PUN/2018 A.Y.2009-10

verification and readjudiation after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Sd/- Sd/- D. KARUNAKARA RAO PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 08th February, 2019. SB आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-13, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT-5, Pune. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6.

// True Copy // आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

�नजी स�चव / Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

6 ITA Nos. 1004 & 1005/PUN/2018 A.Y.2009-10

Date 1 Draft dictated on 07.02.2019 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 07.02.2019 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed and placed JM/AM before the second Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by AM/JM second Member 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order