BARENDRA NATH DEY,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.(OSD), WARD - 53(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1552/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 March 2025AY 2015-2016Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including a Gram Panchayat certificate, valuation report, and an extract from the East Kolkata Wetlands Manual, demonstrating that the land was used for agricultural operations for the required period, with various fruit trees cultivated. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to allow the deduction under Section 54B.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Barendra Nath Dey, sold agricultural land during A.Y. 2015-16 and claimed a deduction of ₹1,44,11,882/- under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) and subsequently the National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)) denied this claim, holding that the assessee failed to substantiate that the land was used for agricultural operations for the two years immediately preceding the sale.

What were the issues?

Whether the land sold by the assessee qualified as agricultural land used for agricultural operations for the two years immediately preceding the date of sale, thereby entitling the assessee to the deduction under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54B,Section 131,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR
Hearing: 13.03.2025Pronounced: 17.03.2025

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 24.06.2024 for the AY 2015-16.

2.

The only issue raised by the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT (A) upholding the order of ld. AO, wherein the benefit claimed u/s 54B of the Act of ₹1,44,11,882/- was denied to the assessee.

3.

The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 07.09.2015, declaring total income of ₹11,88,110/-. The case of the assessee was selected through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection

4.

In the appellate proceedings, he ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by noting that the ld. AO has recorded a clear-cut

5.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee owned an agricultural land which was sold during the instant year and claimed the capital gain u/s 54B of the Act. The assessee even furnished the sale and purchase agreements. The assessee also before us submitted a copy of agreement with the care taker of land and application requesting the AO to supply a copy of deposition of the care taker, which was recorded u/s 131 of the Act. Whereas on the other hands, the ld. AO denied that the care taker of the land did not appear and so the statement u/s 131 of the Act could not be recorded. Thereafter, the assessee also furnished the certificate from Gram Panchayat dated 19.09.2016, a copy of whivh is available at page no. 116, valuation report dated 26.10.2017 issued by DVO at page no. 122 to 126 and extract of East Kolkata Wetlands Manual, copy of which is produced at page no. 127 to 130 of the Paper Book.We observe from the examination of the above documents that the assessee has furnished all the evidences before the authorities below, substantiating that the piece of land was used by agricultural operation for two years immediately before the date of sale. We observe from the perusal of the above records, that the land was bearing fruit trees such as; mango, papaya, guava, jackfruit, olive, litchi, cashew, carambola (star fruit), and banana trees, even the certificate from Gram Panchayat, copy of which is available at page no. 117 revealed that description of Trade is Syamalima Nursery. Therefore, considering all the evidences

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.03.2025.

More judgments on Section 54B

All 814 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →