TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 764
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.10.2016 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)-2/ITO Wd-2/AN/485/2016-17) dismissed the appeal of assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds : "1. The learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Ahmednagar has erred in assessing total income Returned by the Assessee of Rs. 6,68,190/- at a higher amount of Rs. 51,37,354/- the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 has erred in confirming the same. 2. Without considering facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of law, the learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Ahmednagar has erred in contending that there is transfer of capital asset viz. agricultural land during the previous year and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 has erred in confirming the same. 3. The learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Ahmednagar has erred in disallowing deduction of Rs. 9,02,000/- towards expenses incurred by assessee for transfer of capital asset and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 has erred in confirming the same. 4. The learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Ahmednagar has erred in calculating amount of exemption under section 54F by considerin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issue in the present ground is with respect to the order of Ld.CIT(A) wherein he held that assessee was liable for capital gains on transfer of land. We find that Ld.CIT(A) while upholding the order of AO has noted that the sale deed was registered on 27.08.2012 in favour of six persons and in the sale deed the share of six buyers were clearly mentioned. The registration charges and stamp duty were also paid. He has further noted that no civil suit was filed by the assessee for the alleged dishonour of cheques issued by the purchasers. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of Ld.CIT(A) has been pointed out by the assessee. Further, no evidence of filing of suit by the assessee has also been placed on record by the assessee. Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of Ld.CIT(A). Thus, the ground No.2 of the assessee is dismissed. 7. Ground No.3 is with respect to disallowance of Rs. 9,02,000/- towards expenses incurred by the assessee for transfer of capital asset. 7.1. Assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 9,02,000/- towards stamp duty and other charges stated to have been paid by him. The claim of the assessee was not fou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had invested part sale consideration in construction of new house upto 31.07.2013 (being the date for filing the return of income for A.Y. 2013-14), he granted deduction of only Rs. 53,91,397/- as against assessee's claim of Rs. 55,00,000/-. He also noticed that assessee had claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act of Rs. 35 lakhs on account of purchase of agricultural land at Mauje Jalgaon, Taluk Rahata on 26.11.2013. AO was of the view that the claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act cannot be granted to assessee as the amount subject to capital gains was not used for acquiring the new asset (i.e., agricultural land) before the due date of furnishing the return of income i.e., before 31.07.2013. He accordingly denied the claim of deduction. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who upheld the order of AO by observing as under : "5.2. I have perused the facts as mentioned in the assessment order as well as arguments taken on behalf of the appellant. As apparent from the fact, the sale deed has been duly registered on 27.08.2012 in favour of six persons. Not only that in the sale deed itself share of six buyers have been clearly menti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under the Capital Gain Account Scheme. The use of the word 'shall' in sub- section (4), of sec. 54F makes it obligatory for the appellant to deposit unutilized portion in the account under the scheme. In the light of clear provision I am unable to agree' with the appellant that even though the amount was not deposited under the Capital Gain Account Scheme yet he was eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the IT Act. I therefore uphold the order of the Assessing Officer in restricting the deduction u/s. 54F to Rs. 53,91,397/-. 8. In ground No.5, the appellant has objected to the disallowance of Rs. 35,00,000/- u/s 54B of the I T Act. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has mentioned that the amount of capital gain was not utilized for acquisition of new asset before the due date of furnishing of return of income neither the. same was deposited under Capital Gain Account Scheme. The appellant on the other hand, has taken the same argument by stating that due date of filing of return includes sub-section (4) of see. 139 of the I T Act. 8.1 I have perused the facts in this regard. The due date of furnishing of return in the case of the appellant was ....