Assessee gets section 54B deduction on agricultural land transfer despite pending registration due to minor co-owners

ITAT Surat allowed assessee's appeal for deduction u/s 54B regarding LTCG on agricultural land transfer. Initially, AO rejected the claim as purchase deed wasn't shown and land ownership wasn't established. Assessee explained registration was pending due to court permission required for minor co-owners. ITAT held that since minors became major and executed notarized declarations accepting transactions, the purchase agreement was valid and enforceable. Relying on precedents including Balraj and T.N. Aravinda Reddy, ITAT ruled that actual registration isn't necessary for s.54B benefit - payment and enforceable agreement suffice. AO directed to allow deduction.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Non-allowance of exemption under Section 54B for the purchase of agricultural land.
3. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Deduction Claimed Under Section 54B:
The primary issue revolves around the disallowance of a deduction of Rs. 4,04,08,003 claimed under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had sold agricultural land and claimed this deduction for the purchase of new agricultural land. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the deduction on the grounds that the purchase deed for the new land was not registered, and the transaction was not valid under the law due to the involvement of minors in the agreement.

2. Non-Allowance of Exemption Under Section 54B:
The AO issued a show cause notice stating that the assessee had not furnished the registered document for the purchase of the new land. The assessee responded that the registration was pending due to the need for court permission, as two co-sellers were minors at the time of purchase. The assessee provided notarized declarations from the now-major co-sellers affirming the transaction's enforceability. Despite this, the AO concluded that the affidavit and agreement to sale did not confer any legal right to the land without registration, thus disallowing the exemption under Section 54B.

3. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(c):
The AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This was based on the disallowance of the Section 54B deduction.

4. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271F:
Similarly, penalty proceedings under Section 271F were initiated for failure to furnish the return of income within the prescribed time.

Tribunal's Findings:

On Disallowance of Deduction Under Section 54B:
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the transaction was enforceable despite the lack of registration due to minors' involvement. The Tribunal cited multiple precedents, including the Delhi High Court's decision in Balraj, which held that for Section 54 benefits, it is not necessary for the assessee to become the legal owner of the property within the stipulated period. The Tribunal also referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in T.N. Aravinda Reddy, which stated that the term "purchase" should be given its common meaning and that the absence of registration does not negate the transaction's validity. Based on these precedents and the evidentiary documents provided by the assessee, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction under Section 54B.

On Penalty Proceedings:
The Tribunal noted that the penalty proceedings under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271F were premature and did not require adjudication at this stage.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal directed the AO to give the benefit of the deduction under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the assessee. The penalty proceedings under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271F were deemed premature and not adjudicated.

Order Pronounced:
The order was pronounced on 26/06/2023 in the open court.

---