VEENA Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
LAWS(IT)-2014-7-6
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on July 25,2014

VEENA Appellant
VERSUS
INCOME TAX OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Rajpal Yadav, Member (J) - (1.) THE present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the learned CIT (A), dated 04.09.2012, passed for assessment year 2008 -09. Though the assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal, but her grievance revolves around two issues namely: a) Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing exemption u/s. 54B of the I.T. Act, 1961 b) Assessing Officer has erred in making addition u/s. 69 of the I.T. Act on account of unexplained investment in the purchase of land.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. She had filed her return of income on 19.05.2009 declaring an income of Rs. 2,03,680/ -. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the account, the learned Assessing Officer found that the assessee has shown short term capital gain and claimed exemption u/s. 54B of the I.T. Act. The assessee had purchased land on 05.02.2005 comprised Survey No. 112/2 measuring 9 guntas. This land was acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) on 18.06.2007. The assessee had received compensation of Rs. 14,62,500/ -. She has computed the short term capital gain as under: During the year she had purchased land bearing survey No. 62 measuring 6 guntas for a consideration of Rs. 13,14,575/ -. This land was purchased on 17.03.2008. Similarly, she also made investment in a site bearing No. 4C -1008 situated at Hennur Road Banaswadi Layout, 1st Block, Bangalore. This was purchased on 13.06.2007 for a consideration of Rs. 34,03,120/ -. The assessee contended that exemption u/s. 54B be given, because out of the compensation received by her, she had purchased the land.
(3.) THE learned Assessing Officer has rejected the contention of the assessee and observed that as per section 54B, the owner of the land ought to have used the land for agricultural purpose immediately preceding two years. The assessee failed to produce the evidence indicating that the land acquired by KIADB was ever used by her for agricultural purposes. In this way, he declined the claim of the assessee u/s. 54B of the Act.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.