TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 38
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... may kindly be quashed and the additions so may kindly be deleted in full. 3.1 Rs. 35,06,490/-: The CIT has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of thecae in sustaining the addition of Rs. 34,06,490/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of agriculture land and the AO and ld. CIT(A) both also erred in taking the higher value adopted by the Stamp Authority in place of actual sale consideration mentioned in sale deed and received by the assessee while determining the LTCG. Hence, the addition so made by the and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the addition may kindly be deleted in full. 3.2 The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in not allowing the deduction u/s 54B on the purchase of new assets for which the assessee is entitled. Hence, the deduction so denied by the AO and the ld. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the addition may kindly be directed to allow the same. 4.0 The ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case narrated by the assessee, it is observed that there is sufficient cause in preventing the assessee to file the appeal in time. Hence, the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 3.1 Apropos Ground No. 1.1, 1.2 and 2 of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- "5.32.The assessee challenged reopening of the assessment u/s 148 on the ground that no notice was served on the assessee and that notices were not issued on correct address of the assessee. It was also pleaded that the same AO passed assessment orders in the case of assessee and the fact of new address of Akshardham Colony was acknowledged by AO. I have gone through the case record and it was seen that notice u/s 148 was served on Shri Jitendra Kushwah on the last known address of the assessee. Shri Jitendra Kushwah is son of assessee. On a subsequent occasion, the AO tried to serve the notice u/s 142(1) through Police. In the report submitted by Circle Incharge of the Local Police Station, it was stated that on the given address, e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hwah. The assessee placed its reliance on various judgements, however, the facts of the cases were different, in the case (327 ITR 278), land was purchased in joint name whereas in the case of assessee, the land was purchased solely in the name of assessee's sons. The other cases were not related to section 54B. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the assessee can claim relief u/s 54B only when the land was purchased in his/ her name, therefore, the assessee was not entitled for benefit u/s 54B. This ground of appeal is therefore, dismissed.'' 4.2 During the course of hearing the ld.AR of the assessee prayed for deletion of addition of Rs. 34,06,490/-sustained by the ld. CIT(A). During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee filed the written submission which has been taken into consideration while adjudicating this ground of appeal of the assessee. 4.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 4.4 The Bench heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. It is noted from the available records that the assessee had sold agriculture land with other Co-owners for the consideration at Rs. 22,00,000/- and the sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the decision of Delhi High Court in Sunbeam Auto Ltd. and other judgments of different High Courts, the word used is assessee has to invest it is not specified that it is to be in the name of assessee. 7.3 It is true that the contentions which have been raised by the department is that the investment is made by the assessee in his own name but the legislature while using language has not used specific language with precision and the second reason is that view has also been taken by the Delhi High Court that it can be in the name of wife. In that view of the matter, the contention raised by the assessee is required to be accepted with regard to Section 54B regarding investment in tubewell and others. In our considered opinion, for the purpose of carrying on the agricultural activity, tubewell and other expenses are for betterment of land and therefore, it will be considered a part of investment in the land and same is required to be accepted." It is also pertinent to mention that Honble Raj. High Court in the case of Late Mir Gulam Ali Khan vs CIT,165 ITR 228 held that the word "assessee" must be given a wide and liberal interpretation so as to include his legal heirs also. ....