Agricultural land exemption and income estimation: liberal reading of qualifying reinvestment upheld, with part of the income addition sustained.

Section 54B exemption was treated as available where the assessee established agricultural use of the original land through revised revenue extracts, prior returns, and surrounding circumstances, even though the cultivation entries in the revenue records were doubtful. The purchase of other agricultural land, with consideration paid and possession accepted, was treated as sufficient qualifying reinvestment, and the provision was read liberally as a beneficial exemption. On agricultural income, the addition based on estimation was sustained in part because the Assessing Officer's receipt-based computation was found better supported by the record than the appellate reduction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether exemption under section 54B was allowable on the long-term capital gains arising from sale of the agricultural land and investment of the gains in other agricultural lands. (ii) Whether the addition made by estimating agricultural income was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether exemption under section 54B was allowable on the long-term capital gains arising from sale of the agricultural land and investment of the gains in other agricultural lands.

Analysis: The land was found to be owned by the assessees and the revenue records were treated as unreliable because they continued to show the name of the previous owner in the cultivation entries. The revised revenue extracts, the original returns declaring agricultural income for the two preceding years, and the surrounding circumstances supported the finding that the land was used for agricultural purposes in the relevant period. The purchases of the new lands were also treated as sufficient for section 54B purposes, since payment of consideration and possession were accepted and the provision was construed as a beneficial one requiring liberal interpretation.

Conclusion: Exemption under section 54B was held allowable and the Revenue's challenge to the grant of that relief failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition made by estimating agricultural income was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee had produced agricultural sale receipts and other material, while the Assessing Officer made a receipt-based computation and allowed an estimated deduction for expenses. The appellate authority had granted a flat reduction, but that approach was found to be less supported by the record than the Assessing Officer's computation. The estimation made by the Assessing Officer was therefore restored to the extent of the disputed addition.

Conclusion: The addition on account of agricultural income was sustained in part and the Revenue's appeal succeeded to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The exemption under section 54B was upheld, the alternative section 54F claim became academic, and the dispute on agricultural income was resolved partly in favour of the Revenue, resulting in the Revenue appeals being partly allowed overall.

Ratio Decidendi: For section 54B, ownership and agricultural use may be proved by the totality of reliable surrounding evidence and the provision must be construed liberally as a beneficial exemption; where the revenue records are doubtful, they do not by themselves defeat the claim if the assessee establishes agricultural use and qualifying reinvestment.

---