Tribunal allows deduction for agricultural land sale but partially disallows house acquisition deduction

The Tribunal allowed the deduction under section 54B for the sale of agricultural land, finding the land to be agricultural based on unchallenged evidence presented by the assessee. However, the Tribunal partially disallowed the deduction claimed under section 54F due to discrepancies in reported amounts and non-utilization of the deposited sum for house acquisition within the specified period. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant the deduction for the deposited amount and address any unutilized sum in subsequent assessments. The stay petition by the assessee was dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Deduction u/s 54B of &8377; 1422250/- claimed by the appellant.
2. Partial disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Deduction u/s 54B
The assessee claimed a deduction of &8377; 1422250/- under section 54B for the sale of agricultural land. The Assessing Officer denied the deduction as the land was not proven to be used for agricultural purposes. However, the assessee provided evidence of agricultural activities carried out on the land, supported by agricultural records and crop details for relevant years. The Tribunal found that the land sold was indeed agricultural and that the evidence presented was unchallenged by the revenue department. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the deduction u/s 54B in favor of the assessee.

Issue 2: Partial Disallowance of Deduction u/s 54F
Regarding the deduction claimed u/s 54F, the assessee had paid &8377; 6.50 lacs for a new residential house but mistakenly reported it as &8377; 704772/-. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to reject this claim due to lack of clarity on the payment's purpose. Additionally, the assessee deposited &8377; 20.50 lacs in the capital gain account scheme, but the Assessing Officer only allowed a deduction of &8377; 329100/-, citing non-utilization of the deposited amount for house acquisition within the stipulated time. The Tribunal referred to a High Court decision stating that unutilized amounts should be taxed in a later assessment year. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant the deduction for the deposited amount and take necessary action in subsequent years if the unutilized sum is not declared by the assessee. Thus, the Tribunal partially allowed this ground of appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, granting the deduction u/s 54B and directing the proper treatment of the deposited amount under the capital gain account scheme. The stay petition filed by the assessee was deemed infructuous and dismissed.

---