| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 0833 (Ahd-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 54B
Where assessee sought deduction of cost of improvement in relation to sale of ancestral agricultural land, considering fact that assessee utilised sales consideration of old land for purchase of new agriculture land, and prima facie complied with requirements of section 54B, and therefore, purchase price, i.e., investment in new land being more than sale consideration received, there was no necessity to furnish evidence to prove cost of improvement.
|
Capital gains - Deduction under section 54B - -
Assessee sold ancestral agriculture land with other co-owners by registered sale deed. He had 50% share in that property. He sought deduction in respect of cost of improvement. towards filling of pits which developed during excavation of sand for manufacturing of bricks and digging bore-well and pits for storing rain water, and also construction of cattle sheds and storage houses. Assessee claimed that expenditure was incurred three decades back, no details could be traceable and submitted that even otherwise also, claim of assessee was allowable as per provisions of section 54B, because sale consideration received from sale of agriculture property was utilized for purchase of another agriculture land. Held: CIT(A) concluded that assessee had utilised sales consideration of old land for purchase of new agriculture land, and prima facie complied with requirements of section 54B, and therefore, purchase price, i.e., investment in new land being more than sale consideration received, there would not be any necessity to furnish evidence to prove cost of improvement. CIT(A) observed that there was no bar on appellate authorities to entertain claim of assessee in course of appellate proceedings, which AO denied on account of non-filing of revised return. CIT(A) considered issue from factual as well as legal angle and arrived at a just conclusion, which could not be said to be incorrect or unjustified.
REFERRED : Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) : 2006 TaxPub(DT) 1528 (SC), Bhaiji v. Sub Divisional Officer Thandla & Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 692, 700, Harshad Shantilal Mehta v. Custodian & Ors. (1998) 231 ITR 871, 886 (SC) : 1998 TaxPub(DT) 1326 (SC), Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan AIR 1994 SC 1775, Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1991) 188 ITR 402, 440 (SC) : 1991 TaxPub(DT) 0143 (SC), CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC) : 1964 TaxPub(DT) 0339 (SC), CIT v. S. Teja Singh (1959) 35 ITR 408 (SC) : 1959 TaxPub(DT) 0112 (SC), CIT v. Kamlaben Sureshchandra Bhatti (2014) 44 taxman.com 459 (Guj.) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 2435 (Guj-HC), CIT v. Dharamdev Finance (P) Ltd. (2014) 43 taxmann.com 395 (Guj), CIT v. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd. (2013) 35 taxmann.com 513 (Guj), CIT v. Arvind Mills Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 1407/2011, Order, dated 5-7-2012], CIT v. M/s. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P) Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2671 (Bom-HC), Rai Bahadur GV v. Chief CIT (2011) 337 ITR 425 (Cal) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 0500 (Cal-HC), Priyavarte Mehta v. Amrendu Banerjee (1998) 231 ITR 871, 886 (SC) : 1998 TaxPub(DT) 1326 (SC), Asstt. CIT v. Shri Joginder Singh [I.T. Appeal No. 2942 (Del) of 2011. AND C. O. No. 211 (Del) of 2011, dt. 26-8-2011], Anmol Colours India (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2009) 31 SOT 18 (Jp) : (2009) 121 TTJ 269 (ITAT, Jaipur) : 2009 TaxPub(DT) 0585 (Jp-Trib), SNC-Lavalin/Acres Inc. v. Asstt. CIT (2007) 15 SOT 1 (Delhi) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1052 (Del-Trib) and Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2007) 15 SOT 252 (Mumbai) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1721 (Mum-Trib).
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|