AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 214
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal: 1. That the order passed u/s 250(6) by the Ld. CIT(A)- 1, Chandigarh in appeal No. 10098/17-18 dated 20.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) gravelly erred in upholding the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the issue of allowance of benefit under section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was investigated by the Ld. Assessing Officer during the course of original assessment proceedings and has wrongly held that it is a mistake apparent form the record. It is not covered u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) gravelly erred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 passed u/s 154 of the Act rejected the claim of deduction of the assessee u/s 54B of the Act observing that the assessee being 'HUF' was not entitled to claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act on account of reinvestment made in purchase of agricultural land as the same for the assessment year under consideration i.e. assessment year 2012-13 was not available to an 'HUF'. As per the provisions of section 54B of the Act, as applicable for A.Y. 2012-13, where the capital gain arises to an assessee from transfer of a capital asset being land, which, in the two years immediately preceding the date on which transfer took place, was being used by the assessee or a parent of his for agricultural purpose and the assessee has, within ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that deduction already allowed to the assessee in the scrutiny assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act could not have been taken back by Assessing Officer by way of rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Act. He has submitted that the powers of the Assessing Officer to rectify an order u/s 154 of the Act are very limited and that this can be exercised only in case of a mistake apparent on record. That the order cannot be amended / recalled or revised on a debatable issue merely because of change of opinion of the Assessing Officer on such an issue. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has submitted that since as per the Finance Act 2012, the amendment in question has been made ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital gain arises] from the transfer of a capital asset being land which, in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place, was being used by the assessee or a parent of his for agricultural purposes [(hereinafter referred to as the original asset)], and the assessee has, within a period of two years after that date, purchased any other land for being used for agricultural purposes, then, instead of the capital gain being charged to income-tax as income of the previous year in which the transfer took place, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,- (i ) ......" A perusal of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entioned that the "assessee being an individual or his parent or a HUF". However, no such words as "assessee being an individual" finds mention in section 54B prior to such amendment, the wording prior to amendment was, "assessee or a parent of his". As per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, the assessee inter alia can be an individual or an 'HUF' also. Moreover, as per amended provisions deduction is available to the "assessee" if the land is used for agricultural purposes by the assessee himself or by his parent or an 'HUF'. What is noted is that amendment has been carried out in respect of 'user' of the land not in respect of the claimant / assessee whose income is assessed. It is also a well-known fact that in the lan....