PCIT revision upheld for incorrect Section 54B deduction on agricultural land capital gains held under two years

ITAT Rajkot upheld PCIT's revision u/s 263 regarding incorrect deduction claimed u/s 54B on capital gains from agricultural land transfer. Assessee held the capital asset for less than two years, making the deduction ineligible. AO failed to examine this issue during assessment u/s 143(3), rendering the order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests. Assessee and legal heir provided no material evidence supporting their appeal grounds, resulting in rejection of their case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and validity of the order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Verification of Short Term Capital Gain and deduction claimed under section 54B.
3. Conversion of agricultural land into stock-in-trade.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction and Validity of the Order under Section 263:
The Assessee challenged the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CIT) under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as being without jurisdiction and bad in law. The Tribunal noted that the Pr.CIT issued a show cause notice under section 263 on 12.01.2016, and the assessment order was passed without making proper inquiries or verification regarding the deduction under section 54B. The Tribunal upheld the Pr.CIT's jurisdiction and found the order valid, citing Explanation 2 to section 263, which deems an order erroneous if the Assessing Officer (AO) has not made proper inquiries or verification.

2. Verification of Short Term Capital Gain and Deduction Claimed under Section 54B:
The Pr.CIT observed that the AO did not properly verify the Short Term Capital Gain arising from the transfer of agricultural land and the deduction claimed under section 54B. The Assessee contended that the actual transfer date was 15.08.2010, not 15.04.2010, due to a typographical error. However, the Pr.CIT found no evidence in the assessment records to support this claim. The Tribunal confirmed that the AO's failure to verify the period for which the capital asset was held and the investments made for claiming the deduction rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest.

3. Conversion of Agricultural Land into Stock-in-Trade:
The Pr.CIT noted that the land was converted into non-agricultural land on 16.12.2010, and the deduction under section 54B could not be allowed for investments made before this date. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the Assessee could not adopt any date for the transfer of the capital asset to suit the deduction claim. The Tribunal upheld the Pr.CIT's finding that the AO incorrectly allowed the deduction under section 54B, as the investments in lands were made before the date of transfer of the capital asset.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Assessee's appeal, confirming the Pr.CIT's order that set aside the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. The Tribunal directed the AO to make a fresh assessment as per law. The grounds raised by the Assessee were found to be without merit and were rejected.

---