Assessee claimed deduction under section 54B in respect of capital gain arising from sale of agricultural land. Assessing Officer rejected assessee’s claim on ground that purchaser of land was a builder and, thus, said piece of land was not agricultural land. The assessee filed revision petition before the Commissioner of Income tax. Commissioner rejected the revision by holding that the petitioner had not produced any proof that the sold land was used for agricultural purpose for two years prior to the same. The petitioner filed copy of chitta and adangal before the authorities clearly showing that the petitioner had harvested crops in the said land. However, the same were not considered by both authorities and therefore, the present writ petition is filed. Allowing the petition the Court held that view taken by Assessing officer while rejecting assessee’s claim was not in consonance with requirements made under section 54B.Therefore, impugned order was to be set aside and, matter was to be remanded back to Assessing Officer for disposal afresh keeping in view conditions imposed under section 54B. (AY. 2015-16)
S. Sundaramurthy v. PCIT (2020) 269 Taxman 107 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Capital gains-Sale of agricultural land-Order set aside-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer [S. 45, 54B, Art. 226]