TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 572
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing set off claimed by the assessee. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction U/S 54B without considering the basic condition of the said section "the assessee should have used the land for agricultural purpose for a period of two years". 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering that the assessee has failed to prove that the new land purchased by him has been used by him for agricultural purpose. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not demanding the assessee to produce the material evidence such as crops grown, fertilizers purchase bills, seed/sap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same on 24.5.2006 i.e. within a period of less than a year. When the matter went before the CIT(A), CIT(A) allowed the deduction to the Assessee by holding as under : 5.6 The word "FOR" a period of two years, would mean a continuous process, as if agricultural operation has to be continuously carried on for the entire length of two years time. On the other hand, "In" two years would imply that the assessee must have carried agricultural operation sometime within a span of two years. There is no doubt about the fact that, the appellant is a fisherman by profession and not a land-developer. He sold agricultural land and purchased agricultural land only. Thus, through his conduct, he proved that his intentions are to carry out agricultural, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5,15,490/- from the sale of agricultural land which was purchased by them on 10.6.2005 and sold on 24.5.2006. The Assessees claimed exemption against the said Short Term Capital Gains u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act. The AO disallowed the exemption as, in his opinion, the Assessees did not comply with the conditions as stipulated u/s 54B. The issue before us is whether the Assessees complied with the conditions for availing exemption u/s 54B or not. The relevant provisions of Sec. 54B lays down as under : "54B. Capital gain on transfer of land used for agricultural purposes not to be charged in certain cases.--(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a capital asset being land which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rent that to claim benefit of this provision, the following conditions are required to be satisfied :- i) Capital Gains must arise from the transfer of land which in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place was being used by the Assessee or his parent for agricultural purpose; and ii) The Assessee must have purchased land within a period of two years from the sale of the above land for being used for agricultural purposes. In the case of the Assessee, we noted, that the Assessee had purchased the land which was sold by him on 10.6.2005 and the same was sold by the Assessee on 24.5.2006 within a period of less than one year. The question before us is whether the Assessee has complied with both the cond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r agricultural purpose in the preceding two years. The section talks of user of the land continuously for agriculture by the Assessee or his parent; not by any third party. 2.2.1 We have gone through the decision of CIT vs. Minguel Chandra Pais & Anr., 282 ITR 618 (Bom). We are of the view that this decision would not assist the Assessee. In this decision, the question before the Hon'ble High Court was whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed land could be termed as agricultural land. While answering this question, the Hon'ble High Court, after analysing the various decisions and on the basis of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siddharth J. Desai, 139 ITR 628 h....