TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a letter for seeking adjournment by stating that appellant's father was died due to Covid-19 pandemic. Further, appellant's mother was also not feeling well due to Covid-19 complications, and therefore requested to adjourn the matter to June, 2022. The ld.DR for the Revenue has brought to our notice that such stereo-type letters seeking adjournment of hearing were being made by the assessee since May, 2021 and even on the last occasions also none remained present on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the ld.DR seriously objected for grant of further adjournment of the case. 3. On going through the records, it could be seen that such stereo-type letters have been filed by the assessee on 31.5.2021, 8.11.2021, 11.3.2022 and none appeared ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n under section 54B of the Act. Further perusal of the details furnished in respect of capital gain revealed that capital asset was held by the assessee for less than two years and deduction claimed under section 54B was therefore incorrectly claimed by the assessee. The AO while framing the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act has not looked into this issue, which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, a show cause notice under section 263 of the Act was issued on 12.1.2016 to the assessee. The assessee after taking two adjournments filed his written submission. In para-3 of the submission, the assessee claimed that the actual transfer of the capital asset was on 15.8.2010 and due to typographic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of capital asset i.e. 15.04.2010 and the date of the land being converted in to non agricultural land on 16.12.2010 cannot be included in the period of 2 years required u/s. 54B because as per the provisions of section 54B of the Act, the 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 being an individual, or a HUF) for agricultural purposes which means that the stipulated 2 years of agricultural activity should be before the transfer of the capital asset/Therefore, the period during which agricultural activity was carried out after the assessee has transferred the land (15.04.2010 to 16.12.2010), cannot be considered for the agricultural activ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en claimed. The details of the investment is as follows: Sr. No. Particulars of land Purchase price/investment amount Date of purchase deed 1 Survey No. 60/10 of Village Kanagshiali 12,64,600 (25,29,200/2) 16.09.2010 2 Survey No. 60/8 & 61/8 of Village Kanagshiali 11,53,400 (23,06,800/2) 16.09.2010 3 Survey No. 61/10 of Village Kanagshiali 4,95,700/- (9,91,400/2) 18.09.2010 4 Survey No.61/6 of Village Kanagshiali 4,95,700/- (9,91,400/2) 18.09.2010 5 Survey No. 61/7 of Village Kanagshiali 4,95, 700/- (9,91,400/2) 18.09.2010 (a) above detailed lands were purchased before 16.12.2010 i.e. before the date of transfer of capital asset. (c) For claiming deduc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd is not found to be tenable. The notice u/s. 263 of the Act in this case was issued on 12.01.2016. As per Explanation 2 to section 263 which was inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 by the Finance Act, 2015, an order would be deemed to be erroneous if the AO has not made proper verification or has not conducted proper inquiries. The relevant part of the Explanation is reproduced hereunder: "Explanation 2 For the purpose of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) The order is passed without making inquiries or verifica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tock in trade and deduction claimed u/s. 54B of the Act though all the requisite details were furnished at the time of assessment proceedings and verified by the AO. 4. The Id. CIT erred on facts as also in law in holding that an agricultural land cannot be converted into stock in trade and the land converted into stock in trade could not have been agricultural." 7. Heard the ld.DR and gone through the material available on record. We find that this is the twelveth hearing of the matter before the Tribunal. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Though adjournment application has again been filed, but no paper book has been filed by the assessee giving material for considering the stand of the assessee. We find that there was ....