Exemption U/s. 54B on Sale of agricultural land available even if land is cultivated for a part of year during two immediately preceding years

Majid Khan Nisar Khan Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)

Revenue records clearly show that there was cultivation on the land. In so far as determination of two years period is concerned, the period of two is to be determined from date of sale and not the immediately two preceding financial years. The date of sale of land is 3-1-2012. Thus, the period of two years have to be reckoned from January, 2010 onwards. As has been pointed earlier that the land of the assessee is Jirayat land. The assessee could cultivate Kharif crop only on the land during the period starting from April to September. The assessee has shown from the records that the land was under cultivation during the immediately two preceding years and the assessee had grown soyabean and jowar crops on the land. The assessee has satisfied the conditions that the land is being used in two immediately preceding years for the purpose of agriculture before the date of sale.

The assessee has placed reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ratnesh Narliari Jakhadi v. ITO (supra) to suggest that it is not necessary that the land should have used for agri­cultural purposes for full two years immediately preceding the date of transfer. Even if the land is used for some days in the year earlier to the preceding year it would be sufficient for compliance with the provisions of section 54B of the Act.

The learned Departmental Representative has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Bolla Ramaiah (supra). We find that the facts of the said case are distin­guishable. In the said case, undisputedly, the land was not used by the assessee or his parents for agricultural purpose in two years immediately preceding the date of acquisition. In the present case documents on record suggest that the assessee had used the land for agricultural purpose during the financial years 2010-11 and 2011-12. Therefore, the decision rendered in the case of CIT v. Bolla Ramaiah (supra) would not support the case of the Department.

We are of the considered view that the assessee has complied with all the conditions for claiming the exemption under section 54B of the Act in the assessment year under appeal.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.