TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 424
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e A.O. has assessed capital gain on the basis of documents of agreement on stamp paper of Rs. 100/-, which was unregistered document. As per amended provision of section 53A of T.P. Act no such transfer is valid, therefore, without sale of agriculture land assessment of capital gain is bad in law. 4. That the A.O. is in error to assess balance amount of Rs. 26,81,600/-, which is yet not received and neither the assessee has received full consideration nor the possession has been passed over to the other party from the assessee. So as it cannot be treated to be the transfer within provision of section 2(47)-V of the I.T. Act The CIT(A) has not given any finding on this issue. Hence A.O. and CIT(A) both are in error in computing capital gain without transfer. 5. That the A.O. and CIT(A) are incorrect by stating that the assessee handed over the possession. In fact there was agreement to make balance payment within 6 month and due to the non compliance of agreement possession was taken back. Hence, rejection of case law is unjustified. 6. That the initiation of penalty proceeding is bad in law, as the assessee has not concealed any income. 7. That the interest charged U/s ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sfer of the property along with relevant case laws are attached. It was submitted by him that there was only a temporary transfer of the possession of the property and subsequently possession was taken back by the assessee from buyer, further the part of the consideration was not received and therefore capital gain was not chargeable in view of provisions of section 2(47) of the Income tax act, 1961. For this he relied on the decision of Honourable Punjab and Haryana high court in case of C S Atwal V CIT 59 taxmann.com 359. His contention was that that the assessee is an HUF and therefore according to the provisions of section 54B of the income tax act Assessee should be entitled to deduction. For this proposition he relied on the decision of CIT V T Narayanswamy 156 ITR 194 (mad), K S Jain & sons (HUF) V ITO 173 taxman 114 and Jaspal Singh v ITO 186 taxmann 26(del). 6. Ld. departmental representative relied on the orders of lower authorities and submitted that there is no dispute about the transfer of the agricultural land as assessee has received consideration substantially and also parted with possession of the property to buyer. Therefore the temporary taking back of the posse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....returning any payment to the buyer. Reliance by the assessee on decision of Honourable Punjab and Haryana high court in case of C S Atwal V CIT (supra) is also misplaced as in that case the fact of handing over possession of the property to the buyer was presumed as per para no 40 of the decision where in the case of the assessee the facts of handing over possession at the time of entering in to agreement to sale of property in undisputed. In view of this, we confirm the findings of Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) and dismiss ground No. 3, 4 and 5 of the appeal of the assessee. 8. Now we take up the ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee which are against denial of deduction under section 54B of the income tax act to the assessee for the sole reason that assessee is not an individual, but an HUF. Provisions of section 54 B of the act as it stood at relevant times are as under :- 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, in the two years immediately preceding the date on wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the whole of capital gains is reinvested in the purchase of agricultural land in the next two years was extended to a Hindu undivided family, by substitution of the words in sub-section (1), "the assessee or a parent of his", by the words "the assessee being an individual or his parent, or a Hindu undivided family" with effect from April 1, 2013, i. e., for the assessment year 2013-14 and subsequent assessment years. Hence according to the plain language of law the Deduction to assessee HUF was not available for Ay 2012-13. However appellant has relied on the decision of K S Jain & sons HUF V ITO 173 taxman 114 (Delhi) where in the coordinate bench has held that assessee who is an HUF is also entitled to deduction u/s 54B of the income tax Act. We have carefully perused the decision and we have noted that in that decision in para no 6 it is held as under:- "6. In the ground No. 2 the assessee challenges denial of deduction under section 54B of the Act. In the re-assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer on the basis of following decisions held that the assessee being an HUF is not entitled to deduction under section 54B. Those cases are:- 1. CIT v. G.K. Devarajulu [1991]....