TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 569
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... one Shri Raghunath from whom the land was purchased in the year 1965 by the father of the assessee challenged the title of the land in question by filing the case on 09/5/2016 in the court of the SDO. The assessee was fighting the said case filed in the court of SDO and in the mean time, the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order, which was received by the assessee on 08/3/2018, however, thereafter on 04/6/2018, the case regarding title of the land in question was decided against the assessee by the SDO and therefore, the assessee had to take immediate steps for stay and filed the appeal against the said order of the SDO. Thus, the assessee got engaged and busy in the proceedings of the appeal filed before the Court of Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota and got the stay against the order of the SDO. Thereafter, the assessee realized that the assessee has not consulted his counsel for filing the appeal against the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and consequently the present appeal was filed. The ld AR has referred to the orders passed by the SDO as well as the Revenue Appellate Authority and submitted that both the developments happened simultaneously and therefore, the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority whereby the order of the SDO was stayed and the matter was still pending before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The reason explained by the assessee in the affidavit are found to be correct as there was an order of SDO against the assessee whereby the title of the assessee over the land in question was held to be invalid. Thus, when the subject matter of the dispute in the appeal itself was under challenge in the proceedings before the SDO and thereafter the assessee filed the appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority then the reasons and cause of delay explained by the assessee having involved in protecting the title of the land by contesting the case before the SDO as well as by filing the appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority is a reasonable explanation. Accordingly, we satisfy that the assessee was having a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hence, we condone the delay of 91 days in filing the present appeal. 6. Now we decide the appeal on merits. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trace at the time of assessment proceedings, however, the assessee filed the said receipt before the ld. CIT(A) which shows that the assessee got the work of land levelling and incurred the said expenditure. Thus, the ld AR has submitted that the denial of claim without considering the supporting evidence is not justified. 9. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the receipt filed by the assessee is an afterthought evidence as the assessee has failed to establish the requirement of levelling of the land in the year 1984-85. 10. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. We note that the Assessing Officer has denied the claim of cost of improvement to the extent of Rs. 6,75,930/- towards the land levelling cost of Rs. 89,980/- claimed to have been incurred in the year 1984 for want of any supporting evidence. The assessee filed the receipt of the said expenditure before the ld. CIT(A). We have gone through the receipt filed by the assessee which is placed at page No. 52 of the paper book and found that the said receipt contains all the details of the tractor with registration number....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claim should not be denied on technical reasons. 12. On the other hand, the ld DR has submitted that the provisions of Section 54B of the Act clearly envisaged that the deduction is allowable only in respect of the agricultural land purchased after the sale of existing agricultural land. Thus, it is the deduction allowed only when the capital gain is used for purchase of agricultural land within a period of two years after the date of transfer and not before the transfer. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 13. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The provisions of Section 54B of the Act set out the conditions for allowing the deduction in respect of the capital gain arising from transfer of agricultural land if the assessee has purchased within a period of two years, any other land for being used for agricultural purposes. For ready reference, we quote the provisions of Section 54B of the Act: "[Capital gain on transfer of land used for agricultural purposes not to be charged in certain cases. 54B. [(1)] [Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital gain arises] from the transfer of a cap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... if the amount deposited under this sub-section is not utilised wholly or partly for the purchase of the new asset within the period specified in subsection (1), then,- (i) the amount not so utilised shall be charged under section 45 as the income of the previous year in which the period of two years from the date of the transfer of the original asset expires; and (ii) the assessee shall be entitled to withdraw such amount in accordance with the scheme aforesaid." Thus, the provisions envisaged the benefit of deduction when the capital gain arising from the transfer of agricultural land is used for purchase of another agricultural land within a period of two years after the date of transfer. The Legislature has not intended to allow the claim in respect of the land purchased prior to such transfer as in the case of deduction U/s 54 and 54F of the Act. Thus, the beneficiary provision has to be construed and interpreted strictly so far as the primary condition for eligibility to be satisfied though the other ancillary and procedural conditions regarding keeping the fund in the capital gain account scheme before due date of furnishing return of income can be construed liberall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or construction of two rooms cannot be regarded as an expenditure incurred for the purpose of agricultural land. Hence we allow the part claim of the assessee to the extent of the expenditure incurred on improvement of the agricultural land and erection of boundary wall. The Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the deduction U/s 54B of the Act by allowing the said part of cost of improvement on the agricultural land. 13.2 The next grievance of the assessee in respect of the claim of deduction U/s 54B of the Act is regarding the stamp duty expenditure was not taken as part of cost of purchase of land. The ld AR has referred to the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that though the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of deduction U/s 54B of the Act in respect of the land purchased vide sale deed dated 05/7/2013, however, the stamp duty paid by the assessee of Rs. 66,410/- was not included in the cost of purchase of land. We find that the stamp duty is part of cost of purchase of land and therefore while allowing the claim of deduction U/s 54B of the Act, the total cost of land including the stamp duty has to be taken into consideration. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Off....