TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 839
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 3,91,95,831/- u/s. 54B of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to establish with documentary evidences that the agricultural activities have been carried out by him at least for a period of two years immediately preceding the dates of transfer ? 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that showing of agricultural income in the Returns of Income is sufficient to prove that the agricultural activities have been carried out by him in the said land without having furnished any documentary evidences by the assessee ? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in accepting submission of the assessee that the date of transfer of property is in the year in which the Agreement to sale was made with purchaser, when the assessee himself show the sale transaction in the year in which the Sale Deed is registered ? 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Surat may be set aside and that of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. The assessee filed his reply dated 16/12/2016. The relevant part of reply is extracted in para 4.2 of the assessment order. The assessee in its reply in sum and substance submitted that the contents of show cause notice that the assessee sold nonagricultural land is not correct and such facts is specifically denied. The assessee explained that sale deed of land was registered on 10/07/2013 at serial No. 7080. An agreement to sell was executed between the parties on 20/04/2012. At the time of execution of agreement to sell, the purchaser paid advance money of Rs. 30,11,111/- as a part performance of the said consideration. The assessee handed over possession of land on the same date. At the time of handing over the possession, the land was agricultural land. The assessee furnished copy of agreement. The assessee further submitted that the conveyance deed was executed on 10/07/2013. There was some mistake in the payment dates on the conveyance deed so a rectification deed was also registered subsequently on 26/08/2013. In the agreement to sell dated 20/04/2012, it was agreed that purchaser will get the possession and will start procedure for change of land use i.e. non-agricultura....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut supporting evidence does not mean that the assessee was doing any agriculture activities on the land, and land is out of preview of definition of capital asset. 5. The Assessing Officer obtained information from Sub-Registrar, Kamraj about the value determined by the Sub-Registrar on the transaction of said land. The Sub-Registrar, Kamrej furnished report and stated that value of land for the purpose of stamp valuation it was valued at Rs. 4.70 crores. The Assessing Officer again issued a show cause notice by invoking provisions of Section 50C of the Act as to why the difference between value determined by Sub-Registrar office and the value of consideration shown on the registered document should not be added. The assessee again filed reply dated 19/12/2016 and explained that the sale deed was executed by showing the sale consideration at Rs. 3,95,11,111/- on 10/07/2013. The Jantri rate of Revenue Survey No. 18 of said land was Rs. 2500 per square meter and as per the sale document, total area of land was 15697 square meter and total value as per Jantri rate comes to Rs. 3,92,42,500/-. However, the document was executed by showing consideration at Rs. 3,95,11,111/-. The stamp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ltural land. Further the claim of assessee is that he invested sale proceed in purchasing agricultural land. The assessee in original return of income calculated the capital gain. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has not shown capital gain in return of income for A.Y. 2013-14. The ld CIT(A) further noted that in para 4.5 of assessment order, the assessing officer recorded that the assessee furnished the bills of agriculture activities for AY 2009-10,2010-11 and 2011-12, showing cotton and fruits to APMC, Amish Oil Mills. On such observation the Assessing Officer held that the assessee failed to show the agricultural activities in preceeding years and is not eligible for deduction under Section 54B of the Act. 8. During appellate proceedings the ld. CIT(A) directed the assessee to produce copy of Form 7/12, N.A. order and evidence of sale of agriculture product and return of income for three preceeding assessment years. As per the direction of ld. CIT(A), the assessee furnished requisite details. On considering such details i.e. return of income for A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, the ld. CIT(A) recorded that the assessee was showing regular agricultural income in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld. AR of the assessee submits that delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate for the reasons that there was no clarity on the issue of Section 50C as the ld. CIT(A) neither accepted nor rejected such plea of assessee. The assessee, initially, filed application under Section 154 of the Act for seeking rectification in the appeal order. The assessee was bonafide in pursuing remedy before the ld. CIT(A). The delay occurred in getting the proper advice which is neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee has good case on merit on the issue on which he has filed cross appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee will not get any benefit in filing appeal belatedly rather there is a chance that the delay may not be condoned. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that a liberal view may be taken to condone the small delay of 21 days in filing appeal. 13. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue after going through the contents of order of ld. CIT(A) and the application for condonation of delay would submits, that the Bench may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 14. We have considered the rival contentio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agriculturist. It is a known fact and legal position in the State of Gujarat that the agricultural land can be purchased by agriculturist whose name is registered in the record of Collector as an agriculturist (Khedut). The purchaser was not the agriculturist, therefore, the user of land was changed at the instance of purchaser. The fact remain the same that the assessee handed over the land as agricultural land and purchased another agricultural land. The Assessing Officer has not disputed the nature of new agricultural land and subsequent agriculture activities thereon. Only a limited issue on the deduction under Section 54B was that the assessee was using the said land for agriculture purpose. The assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before the ld. CIT(A) proved beyond doubt that the assessee was doing agriculture activities by furnishing requisite evidences. Such fact is otherwise accepted by Assessing Officer in assessment order that nature of business of assessee is "agriculture activities" on first page of assessment order. The location of land from municipal limit was notwithstanding when the assessee has claimed deduction under Section 54B of the Act. For claim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Amish Oil Mills. 20. We find that the Assessing Officer while rejecting the claim of assessee under section 54B, referred the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Siddhartha J. Desai (supra), we find that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the decision in correct perspective. The ratio of decision and the fact of said decision are more favorable to the assessee. In the said case, the nature of land was also converted from agriculture to non-agriculture purpose just before transfer of land and the same was considered as a transfer of agriculture land as far as seller is concerned. Those facts exactly similar to the facts of the present case. Thus, we find that the ld. CIT(A) on appreciation of such evidence, allowed the deduction under Section 54B of the Act. We find that finding of ld. CIT(A) is based on appreciation of evidence with regard to claim of deduction under Section 54B of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in his order which we affirm. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed. 21. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 22. Now adverting to the appeal of asses....