TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....during which period, normal life was come a grinding halt, and no activities could be carried out during this period. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application No. 21 of 2022 in Misc. Application No. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition(c) No.3 of 2020 in Re: Cognizance for Extension of limitation dated 10.1.2022, which extended the period of limitation in filing litigations before the various judicial forum as per the directions contained therein. 3. The ld.DR opposed the maintainability of appeal before us, stating that the assessee has no sufficient and reasonable cause so as to justify the condonation of delay before us and the delay was attributable completely to laxity on the part of the assessee. 4. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material placed before us. The revisionary order was passed by the ld.Pr.CIT on 24.2.2020 and served on the assessee on the same date. The assessee ought to have filed appeal against the same within 60 days. However, the appeal was filed before us on 01.10.2021 resulting in delay of 525 days. However, we have noted that due to the pandemic of Covid-19, the limitation prescribed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ircumstances of the case, Pr. CIT has erred in invoking the provision of Section 263 in reference to disallowing of deduction u/s. 54B of the Act without appreciating that Assessee is eligible for the claim of the deduction as the assessee has fulfilled the conditions' as required by the statue and hence no disallowance was warranted u/s 54B of the Act. 6. That without prejudice, the Pr. CIT has exceeded his jurisdiction in setting aside the assessment order and directing the AO to make fresh assessment when his notice and the order passed is limited to certain issues only. Hence the order passed u/s 263 is illegal and bad in law. 7. The Ld. Pr. CIT - 1, Vadodara has further erred in law and in facts in directing the conduct of enquiry and verification which are beyond the scope of powers vested u/s 143(3) and consequently u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 8. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw any of the ground of appeal hereinabove contained." 6. Above grounds of appeal demonstrate that they are not in consonance with the Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, as they are a blend of descrip....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ht to our notice regarding conditions to be fulfilled to be eligible to claim exemption thereon. The same are reproduced hereunder: 54B. (1) Subject 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 being an individual or his parent, or a Hindu undivided family 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) if the amount of the capital gain is greater than the cost of the land so purchased (hereinafter referred to as the new asset), the difference between the amount of the capital gain and the cost of the new asset shall be charged under section 45 as the income of the previous year; and for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ture purpose. 12. The ld.counsel for the assessee contended that it is apparently non-fulfillment of the first condition by the assessee, which was noted by the ld.Pr.CIT, for finding the assessee ineligible to claim exemption u/s 54B of the Act. In this regard, he pointed out that the ld.Pr.CIT had noted that the assessee had converted his agriculture land to non-agriculture land (NA) prior to sale and on this basis he arrived at the conclusion that the assessee had not fulfilled the criteria prescribed by section 54B of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the conditions to be fulfilled as per the section 54B of the Act was not with regard to the nature of the land, but with respect to its user i.e. whether it was used for agriculture purpose for two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place. 13. At this juncture, the attention of the ld.counsel for the assessee was drawn to the finding of the ld.Pr.CIT at para 4.5 of his order to the effect that the case records revealed that no inquiry had been made by the AO regarding the user of the land for agriculture purpose for two years prior to the date of transfer. The relevant part bei....