Case Law Details
Adit Rathi Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s impugned Section 54B deduction claim for the sole reason that his reinvestment made in Wagholil land had not proved to have been made in purchasing agricultural land. This is in light of the fact that the Assessing Officer’s remand report filed before the CIT(A) had cleared all objections regarding the assessee’s land sold at Bavdhan. It has further come on record that although the CIT(A) accepts the assessee to have carried out agricultural activities on the land purchased in later years in light of form 7/12, he has however affirmed the assessment findings that the reinvestment in land was not agricultural at the time of purchase.
We find no substance in Revenue’s argument supporting the impugned disallowance for the foregoing reason(s). We deem it proper to reproduce the relevant reinvestment clause in section 54B of the Act that “the assessee has, within a period of two years after that date, purchased any other land for being used for agricultural purposes”. It is thus clear that the legislature has nowhere incorporated that the lands re-purchased in section 54B deduction claim have to be agricultural on the date of re-investment as is sought to be projected at the Revenue’s behest. We thus adopt stricter interpretationCommissioner Vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 (FB)(SC) to hold that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in disallowing the assessee’s section 54B deduction claim. The same stands deleted.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 arises against the CIT(A)-10, Pune’s order dated 07-02-2020 passed in case No. PN/CIT(A)-10/ITO Wd 13(1)/135/16-17/1284 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in short “the Act”.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
