2019 (12) TMI 40

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....- He purchased an agricultural lands bearing Survey No.123/3A, 123/4, measuring 0.62 cents and 0.53 cents respectively in No.17, Thulangum Thandalam Village, Kancheepuram Taluk through registered sale deed dated 19.06.2011. The petitioner also purchased adjoining agricultural land measuring an extent of 65 cents in Survey No.123/1 by way of sale deed dated 27.06.2011. The petitioner had been carrying on agricultural activities by growing paddy in the said land. Since the income was meager, the petitioner did not report agricultural income in his Income Tax returns. The petitioner sold the above lands on 24.09.2014 to a third party purchaser and reinvested the sale proceeds in the purchase of lands bearing Survey Nos.2558/1, 2558/2 and 25....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....any other issue and the order dismissing the petition, can only be considered as an order covered by the Explanation 1 to Section 264. It is also stated therein that the Assessing Officer found that the land sold by the assessee was not an agricultural land at the time of its sale and hence, disallowed the claim under Section 54B of the Act. It is further stated that the first respondent has, after due consideration of the materials produced during the course of the proceedings under Section 264, found that the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence for carrying out agricultural activity, in the land sold by the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was carrying on agricul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....art. Firstly, the assessee has to satisfy that two years prior to the sale, he was using the land for agricultural purposes. Secondly, he has to satisfy that within a period of two years from the date of the sale, he has purchased any other land for being used for agricultural purposes. 10. In this case, it is stated that after the sale, the petitioner has purchased agricultural lands within two years. However, the dispute in this case is not with regard to the second condition. On the other hand, the dispute is that the petitioner did not use the land for agricultural purposes two years immediately preceding the date on which the sale took place. Though, the Revisional Authority while rejecting the revision under Section 264, has sta....