Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.77,86,500/- made by A.O. without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not objected before the Sub Registrar Authority and paid the stamp duty

3. We take first ground regarding deletion of addition of Rs.1,60,09,128/- made by the AO under section 54B of the Act.

4. Brief facts of the case in this regard are that during the year under consideration the assessee has sold ancestral agriculture land admeasuring 10117 sq.meters situated at village Ambli together with other co-owners for a consideration of Rs.5,35,00,000/- by registered sale deed dated 17.1.2014. The assessee was having 50% share in that property, which came to Rs.2,67,50,000/- on which capital gain is liable for taxation. The assessee has sought deduction in respect of cost of improvement of Rs.1,60,09,128/-. The Ld.AO sought explanation for this improvement cost from the assessee. The claim of the assessee was on two counts. Firstly, it was explained by the assessee that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was between 1982 to 1993 and the assessee being an agriculturist was not required to maintain books of accounts and other records and that too for a period of about 23 to 34 years. These expenditure was incurred 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. Since this expenditure was incurred three decades back, no details could be traceable or lost due to time eclipse. Secondly, assessee submitted that even otherwise also, the claim of the assessee was allowable as per the provisions of Section 54B of the Act, because the sale consideration received from the sale of agriculture property has been utilized for purchase of another agriculture land. The explanation of the assessee was not found tenable to the AO on the ground that there was no supporting evidence. He also dismissed the explanation that the claim of the assessee also covered under section 54B of the Act, firstly on the ground that neither the assessee made such claim in his return nor filed any valid revised return. Secondly, on the ground that transaction of purchase of the agriculture land has taken place before the sale of the sale property. According to the AO, as per the provisions of section 54B, the assessee requires to purchase the agriculture land after the date of transfer of agriculture land on which capital gain has arisen.

7. The claim of the assessee was that if the improvement cost was not allowable, alternatively, it should be allowed under section 54B of the Act, because the assessee has invested entire sale consideration on purchase of new agriculture land. This claim of the assessee was dismissed by the AO because registration of new agriculture land dated 2.11.2013 happened to be before the sale of original agriculture land for which sale deed has been registered on 13.1.2014, and even no such claim was made by the assessee by filing revised return. A perusal of the order extracted (supra), we find that the claim of the assessee was allowed by the Ld.CIT(A) on the ground that conditions for allowing such deduction under section 54B of the Act have been fulfilled by the assessee. Besides, that assessee made such claim even during the remand proceedings as well as a revised claim was made by the assessee before the AO. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that simply because the assessee has not filed a valid revised return, that would not be a ground for rejection of such claim. In order to understand legitimacy of the investment, the Ld.CIT(A) analysised fund flow statement filed by the assessee, which has been noticed by the Ld.CIT(A) at page no.19 of the impugned order. On date wise analysis of the same, the Ld.CIT(A) has come to the conclusion that assessee has 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 of Rs.2,70,00,000 being more than the sale consideration received of Rs.2,67,50,000/-, there would not be any necessity to furnish evidence to prove cost of improvement. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that there was no bar on the appellate authorities to entertain claim of the assessee in the course of appellate proceedings, which the AO denied on account of non-filing of revised return. While holding so, the Ld.CIT(A) relied upon various authoritative judgments as mentioned in his above finding. We find that Ld.CIT(A) has considered the issue from factual as well as legal angle and arrived at a just conclusion, which cannot be said to be incorrect or unjustified. In view of the above, our interference is not called for on this issue. It is upheld. Ground no.1 of Revenue is thus dismissed.