TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 922
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" in short] for the Assessment Year 2018-19 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in upholding action of ld. AO in denying relief u/s. 54B of the Act to the extent of Rs. 28,95,569/-, on the ground, that the appellant has failed to deposit the unutilized amount in the Capital Gain Account out of investible/exempted amount u/s. 54B of Rs. 30,48,569/-, ignoring the fact that assessee had already issued cheques for the unutilized amount on the date of the agreement before the due date of furnishing ITR. 2. The learned CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts of the case in grossly mis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. The action of the learned AO is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 7. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Id. AO in levying interest u/s. 234A/B/C of the Act. 8. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Id. AO in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. 3. The brief ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tended that the stated agricultural land was purchased on 14.9.2014 by issue of post-dated cheques and the same have been affected payments subsequently and on this analogy appellant contends that the entire payment as indeed paid as on the date of registration making it eligible for deduction u/s. 54B of I.T Act. Further in these GOA, appellant is contending the stipulated condition for depositing the fund in specified capital gain bank A/c is only procedural to examine incurring of expenditure out of capital gain and accordingly claims such procedural deficiencies cannot be invoked to deny the exemption is the contention of the appellant. On this analogy, appellant adduced various citations to hold such non-deposit of funds in specified b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of Rs. 30.48 lacs. The balance amount is indeed paid/ incurred subsequently through post-dated cheques in violation of the provisions u/s. 54B of I.T Act, that too without routing such payments through specified capital gain bank A/c as per the due procedure as reasoned in the assessment order. In the light of these finer facts on perusal of appellant various contentions / GOA and submissions as advanced during appeal proceedings., it is noticeable that, appellant is vehemently contending such non-deposit of funds in specified bank A/C is only a procedural irregularity as appellant is indeed involved in purchased of new agricultural land before filing of ROI as per the provisions of I.T Act and thereby contended the deduction as claimed u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f AO in restricting such claim in adherence to the provisions u/s. 54B of I.T Act is to be seen as apparently reconcilable. Further, appellant has placed reliance on various citations as per the submissions to hold the same as allowable deduction even though not routed through the specified bank A/c etc. and on perusal of facts of case / ratios of adjudication of the citations as applicable to appellant facts of case, the same are neither comparable nor equitable in its facts of case and ratios of adjudication apparently as per law. Further, appellant did not bring out such comparative analysis as applicable to appellant facts of case involving post- dated cheque payments etc. and ratios of adjudication as attributable to the citations as n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rded as having been made on the date of issuance of the cheques, and the benefit of deduction under section 54B could not be denied merely because the cheques were presented later by the seller. The Ld. AR also pointed out that the purchase deed dated 14.08.2019 was duly furnished before the Assessing Officer, who had verified the same. 7. The Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and contended that non-deposit of the unutilized amount into 'CGAS' before the due date u/s. 139(1) is fatal to the assessee's claim, as mandated by section 54B(2). 8. We have heard the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The undisputed facts from the record are that:- (i) the purchase deed fo....