TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1195
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deduction u/s 54B while computing the capital gains and held that the assessee had sold the plot and not agricultural land despite the fact that agricultural activities were carried on by the assessee 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the original assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 23-12-2008. Thereafter the notice u/s 147/148 of the Act was issued on 29-03-2011 which was duly served on the assessee. In response to notice, the assessee vide application dated 25-04-2011 requested to treat the return already filed as in compliance to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The basis and reasons for reopening of the assessment was to the effect that the deduction u/s 54B of the Act claimed by assessee qua sale of Sohna land ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i) During the course of 148 proceedings, the assessee furnished the copy of sale deed/ sale agreement of the land sold by him which reflects that land in question was agricultural land. Ld. AO has referred to these documents and given findings of fact that the sold land belongs to the assessee. Thus the AO verified the claim of the assessee u/s 54B of the Act and disallowed ½ of the land was purchased in the name of the assessee. These facts clearly show that the AO made proper enquiry and applied his mind. Therefore, he disallowed 1/2 of claim u/s 54B of the Act. Since due inquiries were made, his order cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. (ii) In the return for the assessment year 2005-0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the revenue records is agricultural and it is not converteded into residential. The ld. AR placed following case laws:- (i) Hindustan Industrial Resources Ltd. Vs ACIT [2011] 335 ITR 77 (Delhi) (ii) CIT v Smt. DEBBJE ALENO [2011] 331 ITR 59 (Bom) (iii) CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (HC) (iv) Mahish Kumar Vs. CIT (2012) 134 ITD 27/ 17 ITR (Trib.) 324 (Indore)(Trib.) (v) CIT Vs. Gaberil India Ltd. 203 ITR 108, 113, 114 (Bom.) (HC) (vi) CIT Vs. Amit Corpn. (2012) 213 Taxman 19 (Guj.) (HC) (Mag.) (vii) CIT Vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. (2011) 341 ITR 166/ 202 Taxman 130 (Magz.) (Delhi)(HC) 2.5 Ld. AR further pleaded that the order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Smt. Asha George vs. ITO (2013) 351 ITR 0123 in which Hon'ble High Court affirmed the finding of the lower authorities that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of Section 54B on the ground that the property which she sold was not used for agricultural purposes for a period of two years prior to date of the sale as required u/s 54B of the I.T. Act. Therefore, ld. CIT has rightly exercised his jurisdiction u/s 263. Besides he has adopted a reasonable view in setting aside the assessment order for fresh consideration after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 2.7 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. It has not been disputed by the assessee that agricultural in....