SHRI VINOD TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly considered the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee, which indicated the land was used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed exemption under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act for the sale of land used for agricultural purposes. The lower authorities disallowed the exemption, relying solely on the recital in the sale deed that the land was residential.
What were the issues?
Whether the recital in a sale deed that land is residential overrides land revenue records and evidence of agricultural use for the purpose of Section 54B exemption. Whether penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) are sustainable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Smt. Anjana Sehgal5 citing133 Taxmann 712 · 2003 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU & SHRI L.P. SAHU
ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM
This appeal is filed by assessee against the Order dated 5.12.2014 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad relating to Assessment Year 2011-12 on the following grounds:-
1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts in disallowing the legitimate claim of exemption u/s. 54B of I.T. Act, in an abrupt, arbitrary and cursory manner without considering at all the clinching evidence relied upon by the appellant.
2. That in doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) further erred both in law and on facts in placing reliance exclusively on the recital of land as residential in the sale deed, which is nothing but a typographical error and lack of vigilance and legal knowledge on the part of deed writer.
3. That even otherwise too the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that mere so called recital in the sale deed by no cannon of law a gospel truth and it does not rule out, supersede the entries in land revenue records maintained at Tehsil level.
4. That on the facts and the surrounding circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that mere so called description of land as residential in the sale deed itself is not a legal bar for exemption u/s. 54B of I.T. Act, as it clearly refers to “land” used for agricultural purposes, as in the case of appellant.
5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, ignition of penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act is not legally sustainable.
6. Any additional ground / grounds.
Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
None appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Ld. DR relied upon the orders of authorities below.
We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. We find that assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages 1-98 in which he has attached the acknowledgement of ITR and computation for AY 2011-12; assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 alongwith copy of submission dated 19.2.2014 to provide a clear copy of text copied by AO in his assessment order; appellate order u/s. 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961; copy of sale deed for sale of land; copy of submission made to AO on 24.2.2014; copy of Fard submitted to AO for crop years 1416,1417; copy of ITR and computation of income for AY 2009- 10, 2010-11 showing agricultural income; certified copy of khata khatauni showing title of land as agricultural alongwith Death Certificate of father of the assessee; certified copy of Khasra Girawari for crop year 1416,1417 and 1418 reflecting agricultural activity on subject land; clarification by Tehsildar on Crop year and its corresponding calendar months; CIT vs. Savita Rani; 2003 133 Taxman 712 (P&H); ACIT vs. Sri N Raghu Varma; ITAT, Hyderabad and CWT, Andhra Pradesh vs. Officer in Charge (Court of Wards) 1977 AIR 113 (SC). We find in the grounds of appeal the assessee submitted that lower authorities erred in disallowing the legitimate claim of exemption u/s. 54B of I.T. Act, in an abrupt, arbitrary and cursory manner without considering at all the clinching evidence relied upon by the assessee. It was further mentioned that in doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in placing reliance exclusively on the recital of land as residential in the sale deed, which is nothing but a typographical error and lack of vigilance and legal knowledge on the part of deed writer. It was further mentioned that even otherwise too the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that mere so called recital in the sale deed by no cannon of law a gospel truth and it does not rule out, supersede the entries in land revenue records maintained at Tehsil level. It was further mentioned that on the facts and the surrounding circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that mere so called description of land as residential in the sale deed itself is not a legal bar for exemption u/s. 54B of I.T. Act, as it clearly refers to “land” used for agricultural purposes, as in the case of assessee. In view of the above contention of the assessee made in the grounds of appeal and in the interest of justice, we set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh, in accordance with law and after considering the documentary evidences filed by the assessee, as aforesaid and give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the AO in the proceedings and did not take any unnecessary adjournment.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 20/12/2018.
More judgments on Section 54B
- Jagdishbhai Vasharambhai Italiya, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 150/AHD/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Sheela Devi, Etawah vs ITO, Ward 2(2)(5), EtawahITA 419/AGR/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Shailendra Kumar Sogani, Bhopal vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)…ITA 1076/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Nohar Yadav, Mandir Hasoud, Teh. Arang vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(2), Raipur…ITA 640/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Nohar Yadav, Mandir Hasoud, Teh. Arang vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(2), Raipur…ITA 639/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026