TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 815
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in upholding the finding of the Id. A.O. that the "land" transferred to the partnership firm was not "agricultural" land and therefore consideration of Rs. 56,85,282/- is taxable as Long Term Capital Gain being not exempt under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in holding that the appellant had not been eligible to claim relief under the provisions of section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of new property acquired. 3. Without prejudice to the Ground No. 2, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in respect of disallowance of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds, club, renting consultancy service and maintenance contracts etc. Therefore, it is clear that for all practical purpose, the land has been held as a non-agricultural land, nor there was any intention of the firm to use the said land for agricultural purpose. The A.O. concluded by treating the income arising out of the sale of said agricultural land at Rs. 56,85,282/- as Long Term Capital Gain. 5. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success. 6. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the assessee was holding agricultural land situated at Village Aluva of taluka Kalol, Dist. Gandhinagar. It is the say of the ld. counsel that the land is put for agricultural purpose and accordin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s has been extracted by the First Appellate Authority in his order at pages 9 to 12. 9. We find that both the lower authorities have grossly erred in dismissing the claim of the assessee merely on the strength of the probable uses of the said agricultural land by the purchaser M/s. Attune Inc. We fail to understand the observations of the A.O. which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), that the onus for converting the agricultural land for nonagricultural purpose is upon the firm M/s. Attune Inc. as per the MOU. As mentioned earlier, the assessee is not responsible for the acts of the purchaser of the land. All that we are concerned about is whether the said agricultural land was used for agricultural purposes before the date of transfe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uction at Rs. 21.25 lacs. 13. The claim of the assessee was denied by the A.O. on the ground that the assessee has invested Rs. 21.25 lacs only towards the cost of the house measuring 102.86 sq. mtrs. in ground floor and 107.63 sq. mtrs. on first floor. The A.O. was of the opinion that the assessee is eligible for deduction against the cost of the house along with the cost for the said construction. The A.O. concluded by holding that the amount eligible for deduction u/s. 54F would be Rs. 31,55,563/-. The A.O. further observed that since the original return of the assessee was a belated return, the same could not have been revised by the assessee and, therefore, the claim of deduction u/s. 54F made in the revised return of income cannot ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emption cannot be denied because a legal claim can be made before the First Appellate Authority also and the First Appellate Authority should have entertained the claim of the assessee. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. 349 ITR 336 held as under:- "An assessee is entitled to raise not merely additional legal submissions before the appellate authorities but is also entitled to raise additional claims before them. The appellate authorities have the discretion to permit such additional claims to be raised. The appellate authorities have jurisdiction to deal not merely with additional grounds, which became available on account of change of circumstances or law, but with additional grou....