Sri. Basavaraj C Bayahatti, Hubli V. ITO, Hubli

ITA 828/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8449 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 54B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.828/BANG/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI. BASAVARAJ C BAYAHATTI, MELGADE ONI, GOPANAKOPPA, HUBLI. PAN : AFMPB8391N VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), HUBLI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI. M. K. BIJU, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 30.03.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.03.2017 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF CIT(A), INTER ALIA, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: ITA NO.828/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 3 1. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND 1ST APPELLATE AU THORITY IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE ASSESSES CLAIM OF DEDUCT ION UNDER SECTION 54B OF INCOME TAX ACT. EVEN THROUGH THE ASS ESSES BEING ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 B OF I NCOME TAX ACT. 2. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FIRST APPELLATE AUT HORITY IS NOT RIGHT IN COMING TO CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE UND ER THE SAID RULE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION IF THE ASSEESEE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY OUT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATIO N AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE AGREEMENT OF SAL E BEFORE THE ACTUAL DATE OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED. 3. THE BOTH THE AUTHORITIES FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE I NTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO USE THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PURCHASE OF TH E AGRICULTURAL LAND, THEN THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FO R THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54B IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DAT E OF EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED. 4. BOTH THE AUTHORITIES DID NOT CONSIDER THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED BOTH THE PROPERTIES ONE BEFORE THE DATE O F THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY AND ANOTHER AFTER THE DATE OF SALE OF THE PROPERTY IS OUT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION UN DER SECTION 54 B OF INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THIS APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 30.03.2017, B UT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT ON LAST DATE OF HEARING I.E., 09.02.2017, HEARING WAS ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE TO 30.03.2017. DESPITE HAVING ISSUED NOTI CE ABOUT THE DATE OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE WE HAD NO OPTION BUT TO HEAR THE APPEAL EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSE SSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ITA NO.828/BANG/2016 PAGE 3 OF 3 HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF THE REVENUE AND HAVING CAREF ULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THE IMPUGNED ISS UES RAISED BEFORE US IN THE LIGHT OF REVENUES CONTENTION, WE FIND THAT CIT (A) HAS PROPERLY ADJUDICATED ALL THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE US AND SIN CE NO INFIRMITY IS POINTED OUT THEREIN, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). A CCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2017. SD/- SD/- (S. JAYARAMAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE. DATED: 31 ST MARCH, 2017. /NS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANTS 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.