AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 1191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red and was not justified in making and the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 22,99,270/- on account of capital gains on sale of agricultural land. 4. That the Ld. Assessing Officer erred and was not justified in disallowing ant the ld. CIT(A) in upholding the disallowance u/s 54F of the Act claimed by the appellant. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute modify any of the above grounds on or before the final hearing. 2. The assessee has also made an application under Rule 11 of Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963 for allowing the appellant to take additional grounds in appeal stating that the additional grounds of appeal are raised for legal issue and raised in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383. Following additional grounds have been raised: 1.That the appellant prays leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal to urge the following additional grounds in its appeal:- A.Whether the order passed by the Assessing Officer is contrary to the decision of the Jurisdictional Hon'ble Court in CIT vs. Mis Mechmen [2016] 380 ITR 591 (MP) in which the Hon'ble MP H.C has categorically held that u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee be not rejected as the conditions of section 54B of the Act are not fulfilled. Ld. Assessing Officer also observed that the assessee has sold agricultural land during F.Y. 2007- 08 for a consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/- and to avoid liability of long Term Capital Gain Tax made deposit in the Capital Gain Account Scheme at Rs. 23,00,000/-. In reply assessee submitted that within one year before the date of sale of the land, the assessee had purchased a residential flat at Pune. Inadvertently due to wrong advice by the consultant, investment was made in the Capital Gain Account Scheme at the time of filing original return of income even though the assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. It was also submitted that the return in compliance to notice u/s 153C of the Act should be treated as the final and correct return of income and the original return should not be considered for assessing the income. However, Ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied and he was of the view that the actual date of sale of land is 28.12.2007 and not 06.12.2007 and the residential flat at Thane was purchased on 12.12.2006 and not on 10.02.2007 claimed by the assessee and there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich is clearly an afterthought. The appellant assessee was fully aware and it was in his knowledge that the amount of Rs. 22,99,270/- claimed as a deduction on account of deposits in Capital Gain Account Scheme and the time period for utilization for this deposit has expired on 29.12.2009, hence this after thought to claim deduction on account of residential house at Thane, Mumbai. The A. a has given detailed reasoning and has examined the claim of the appellant assessee at length and in great detail At that time of filing of original return the assessee was fully aware of the purchase of flat by him at Thane, Mumbai. In view of the above there was no need for him to deposit the money in Capital Gain Account Scheme. He should have straight away claimed deduction on account of purchase of flat. No reasons what so ever have been filed before the A.a or at the appellate stage that why the assessee showed no claim of the deduction on account of purchase of flat in Thane, Mumbai and deposited that money from sale of land in Capital Gain Account Scheme. Under what circumstance later on he changed his mind to claim deduction on account of purchase of flat. Thus, it is abundantly cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct should be initiated. As regards the quantum issue Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the agricultural land was sold on 28.12.2007 and the flat was purchased on 12.12.2006 and the difference is more than one year and therefore the claim of assessee u/s 54F of the Act should not be entertained. 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the decisions referred and relied by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. 11. We will first take up the legal issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment order on the ground that proper satisfaction has not been recorded by the Ld. Assessing Officer of the searched person and absence of satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act renders the assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act illegal void and without jurisdiction. 12. We find that the Revenue has filed the following copy of satisfaction note on 03.03.2020 prepared by the Ld. Assessing Officer of the searched person after examining the seized records of the M/s Sagar Group wherein search was conducted on 21.10.2011. "Name: M/s. Vindhyachal Process Corporation 116, Malviya Nagar, Bhopal PAN: AC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l be the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the other person and therefore there is no question of transmitting such seized documents to himself". 14. In light of the above ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Super Malls Pvt. Ltd.(supra) and on examining the satisfaction note reproduced above we are of the considered view that a proper satisfaction note of the Ld. Assessing Officer has been prepared having jurisdiction over the searched person as well as the assessee for initiating the proceeding u/s 153C of the Act and therefore we find no merit in the additional legal ground raised by the assessee. We accordingly dismiss the same. 15. As regards the grounds raised on merits we find that the assessee sold agricultural land vide registered deed dated 28.12.2007 for a consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/-. Possession of the said land was given on 06.12.2007. Indexed cost of acquisition of the land was Rs. 2,00,730/-. Net Long Term Capital Gain was Rs. 22,99,270/- from sale of said land. There is no dispute for the Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 22,99,270/-. Assessee deposited Rs. 23,00,000/- in Capital Gain Account Scheme on 29.09.2008 and claimed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee in the revised return of income assessee is required to purchase the residential house within one year before the date of sale or two years after the date of sale or should have constructed residential house within three years from the date of sale. The assessee has claimed that it has purchased residential house within one year before the date of sale in the form of flat at Thane, Mumbai claimed to be purchased on 10.02.2007. The assessee has stated that the sale deed for purchase of residential flat is dated 12.12.2006 but the possession was given on 10.02.2007. This is the only point of difference between the revenue authorities and assessee. The revenue authorities have claimed that the flat was purchased on 12.12.2006 and assessee's claim the date of purchased as 10.02.2007. From perusal of records we find that registered sale deed placed at pages 20 to 34 was executed on 12.12.2006 but on perusal of paper book pages 35 to 38 we find that the possession of the said flat was given to the assessee on 10.02.2007. The transfer of residential flat in favour of the assessee is completed only when the possession is given i.e. 10.02.2007. On adopting the date of purchase o....