Capital gain exemption for agricultural land upheld where revenue records and ancillary evidence establish agricultural user; departmental field report rejected.

Application of the statutory exemption for capital gain arising from agricultural land transfer required proof of agricultural user in the two years before transfer and purchase of replacement agricultural land within two years; revenue records, khasra/girdawari and halqa patwari reports, land revenue orders and ancillary evidence (tube well plans, electricity bills, DDA master plan classification) were held to satisfy the statutory conditions, while a departmental inspectors' report made three years after transfer was treated as insufficient to rebut those records for want of procedural confrontation. The appellate deletion of the disallowance was affirmed and the assessee retained the deduction under the agricultural-land capital-gain exemption rule.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the Assessing Officer's disallowance of Rs. 41,71,72,652 claimed as deduction under Section 54B of the Income tax Act, 1961 should be confirmed or reversed?

Analysis: The issue requires application of Section 54B(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 which permits exemption where (a) capital gain arises from transfer of land that was used for agricultural purposes in the two years immediately preceding the transfer and (b) the assessee, within two years, purchases other land to be used for agricultural purposes. Relevant fact findings include: sale deed and purchase deeds describing the lands as agricultural; revenue records (khasra/girdawari and halqa patwari reports) and orders under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act finding agricultural user; DDA master plan classification evidence; the assessee's consistent declaration of agricultural income over years; additional documentary evidence (tube well plans, electricity bills) admitted by the CIT(A); and an inspectors' report by departmental officers conducted after the transfer, describing non agricultural activities and photographic observations. The Judicial Member and the Third Member gave weight to statutory conditions and to revenue records and orders under the Delhi Land Revenue Act, and found that the assessee met the requirements of Section 54B, noting that the inspectors' discrete inquiry conducted three years after transfer lacked requisite procedural confrontation and failed to discharge the Department's burden to disprove agricultural user. The Accountant Member gave persuasive reasoning on the low quantum of agricultural income relative to the landholding and relied on the inspectors' contemporaneous field observations to conclude the land was not genuinely used for agriculture; he treated nominal agricultural receipts and photographic evidence as rebuttal of the presumption from revenue records. The majority concluded that revenue records, statutory classification and accepted additional evidence established agricultural user for the relevant period and that the Department did not satisfactorily rebut that user.

Conclusion: The CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance under Section 54B is confirmed and the Revenue's appeal is dismissed; the assessee is entitled to the claimed deduction under Section 54B of the Income tax Act, 1961.

---