Held, that the Assessing Officer had fallen in error in reading the revenue records without seeking due clarification from the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) had not allowed the assessee to produce further evidence to show that land falling in the share of the assessee was not converted, before its transfer by the assessee. The crucial point needed to be restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow the additional evidence of the assessee and to let the assessee establish that the land falling in the share of the assessee which was sold by the impugned sale deed was not converted to non-agricultural purposes by any order of the Revenue authorities. If that was established the fact that it was sold for the purpose of residence of the vendor or that it was valued for the purpose of stamp papers by the registered authority as a non-agricultural land would not be material and the assessee would be entitled to benefit of section 54B of the Act. Matter remanded. (AY. 2011-12)
Vipin Kumar v. ITO (2023)101 ITR 68 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib)
S. 54B : Capital gains-Land used for agricultural purposes-Land sold for residential purposes as per sale deed-Land recorded as agricultural land as per revenue record-Assessee, not applied for change of land-AO failed to enquire whole land in survey number converted to non-agricultural purpose or land falling to share of assessee-CIT(A) is directed to allow additional evidence-Matter Remanded. [S. 2(14) (iii), R. 46A]