Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM
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.
At the outset, we notice that there is a delay of 04 days for filing the
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.
The Ld. AR of the assessee at the time of hearing apprised the Bench
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.
The solitary grievance in both these appeals of the respective assessees
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.
At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR vehemently argued that they have
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.
The Ld. AR further submitted that in absence of any factual verification
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
The Ld. DR , per contra, has placed reliance on the orders of the Sub-
ordinate Authorities.
We have perused the case record and heard the rival contentions. We
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.
In view of the matter, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) and
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.
In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1004/PUN/2018 is allowed for statistical purposes.
That with similar facts and common issues in ITA No.1005/PUN/2018, our decision in ITA No.1004/PUN/2018 shall apply herein also as per the aforesaid directions/observations.
In the combined result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 08th day of February, 2019.
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