TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 1038
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment year 2009-10. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a medical practioner, filed the return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 17.02.2010 declaring total income of Rs. .2,70,52,240/-. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act and selected for scrutiny. Notice under section 143(2) dated 26.08.2010 was duly served on the assessee. 3. The assessee has entered into an agreement with M/s. Lotus Eye Care Hospitals Ltd., Coimbatore to sell the agricultural land for a consideration of Rs. .11,00,00,000/- on 27.03.2008. In pursuant to the above agreement, the assessee was paid Rs. .50.00 lakhs on 27.03.2008, Rs. .4.00 crores on 17.07.2008, Rs. .1.50 crores on 27.08.2008 and re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... three properties amounting to Rs. .1,27,68,537/- and submitted that he is eligible for claiming exemption under section 54B of the Act. The ld. CIT(Appeals), after considering the submissions of the assessee, observed that the Assessing Officer has not brought on record that the assessee has not utilized the sale proceeds for the purchase of agricultural land to claim deduction under section 54B of the Act. He further observed that M/s. Lotus Eye Care Hospital Ltd., who purchased the property enjoyed the possession of the land from 10.09.2008 directed the Assessing officer to allow exemption claimed by the assessee under section 54B of the Act. On being aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal. 6. The ld. DR strongly contended that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee has relied on the Circular No. 359 and also relied on the decision of the Pune Bench of ITAT in the case of Ramesh Narhari Jakhadi v. ITO 41 ITD (PN) 368. The ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly supported the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and prayed for affirming the same. 8. We have heard both parties, perused the materials available on record and also gone through the orders of authorities below. The assessee has entered into an agreement with M/s. Lotus Eye Care Hospital Ltd. to sell the property for Rs. .11,00,00,000/- on 27.03.2008. The assessee has initially received at the time of sale agreement Rs. .50,00,000/-. Thereafter he has received Rs. .4.00 crores on 17.07.2008, Rs. .1.50 crores and the sale was ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er and also purchased agricultural land. The ld. CIT(Appeals) in his order has given a categorical finding that though the sale deed was executed on 30.12.2008, but the possession was given on 10.09.2008. He has also observed that the sale deed has to be executed on or before four months from the date of agreement. There are certain dispute between the assessee and the purchaser. Therefore, the execution of sale deed was delayed and the sale deed was executed in December, 2008. So far as the first objection raised by the ld. DR is concerned, the property was only transferred in December, 2008, therefore, the property purchased before that date is not eligible for claiming deduction under section 54B. In our opinion, this is only a hyper tec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urchase of properties and many of the payments/ expenses are not backed up by proper vouchers and TDS was not deducted and the genuineness was not proved. Therefore, the total amount of expenses of Rs. .47,18,010/- incurred by the assessee was denied for eligibility under section 54 of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the AR of the assessee produced certain bills showing that levelling was done and also fencing was put around the acquired land. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to 50% of Rs. .47,18,010/- on the strength of fresh evidences produced without remanding the evidences to the Assessing Officer for verification or obtained any report from the Assessing Office....