2017 (8) TMI 23

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Panipat, certifying the distance of land beyond 8 K.M. from the municipal limit, was furnished and the learned CIT (A) also erred in confirming the same. 2. That the A.O. without any basis rejected the certificate filed by the Tesildar justifying the distance of the land beyond 8 K.M. and wrongly made total addition of Rs. 4,18,79,866/- which is wrong and baseless. 3. That the return of Income was filed in extended limit of section 139(4) proviso to section 139(1) of the IT Act, 1961 as such full exemption U/s 54B of the IT Act for new land purchased for Rs. 4,92,92,700/- should have been allowed whereas the exemption for Rs. 3,85,70,800/- only has been allowed and exemption of remaining land for the value of Rs. 1,07,21,900/- has w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e local limit of Municipality and as such it was not an asset in terms of section 2(14)(iii) of the IT Act. In support, the assessee furnished a copy of letter stated to have been issued by Tehsildar, Panipat. The AO noted in his order that his office collected information of land situated at same village Azizzullapur in the case of another assessee Smt. Krishna Chopra for A.Y. 2005-06, from the office of Distt. Town Planning Officer, Panipat who as per his office letter No. 2193 dated 31.12.2007 informed that the distance of the land is approximately 1.8 kms from the extended municipal boundary of Panipat. The AO, therefore, observed that the land sold by the assessee was a 'capital asset' within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii) of the Ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r from the date of transfer of the original assets and not after the three years from the date of transfer of the original asset in terms of section 54F(1). It was also observed that the assessee has not purchased any house which is precondition to claim exemption u/s. 54F but has reconstructed on the existing house. 3. Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the order of the AO in appeal before the first appellate authority, who affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer vide impugned order. The assessee was not satisfied by the order of the ld. CIT(A), hence, this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the entire material available on record. 5. The first limb of assessee's ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....self alludes that the property sold by the assessee was nothing else but a capital asset. On this premise only, there is sharp contradiction between the initial claim of land being beyond 8 kms from Municipal limit and the claim of exemption u/s. 54B and 54F on long term capital gain. Moreover, the certificates obtained by the AO in remand proceedings with respect to the impugned land of assessee unequivocally speak against the assessee and the same have not been rebutted by the assessee. Accordingly, the conclusion of capital asset sold by assessee, as observed by the ld. Authorities below, deserves to be sustained. 7. Now adverting to the issue whether the deduction u/s. 54B and 54F claimed by the assessee is available with reference to ....