- (1.) In both appeals common questions of law and facts are involved, hence, they are decided by this common judgment.
(2.) By way of these appeals, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the assessee and appeal of Surendra Singh has partly allowed confirming the order of AO as well as CIT(A).
(3.) Counsel for the appellant has framed following questions of law:- In DBITA No. 98/2018 "i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned ITAT was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee under Section 54B claimed on account of capital gain on transfer of land used for agricultural purposes amounting to Rs. 9,01,332/-? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding the order of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Hyderabad completely at variance without discussing and considering the facts of the case of the assessee as also the facts of the case of ACIT vs. N. Raghuverma,2013 42 ITS 421 Hyd.? iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, ITAT was justified in holding that the lands under consideration (khasra Nos. 886 & 890) were not used for agricultural purposes?" In DBITA No. 99/2018 "i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned ITAT was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee under Section 54B claimed on account of capital gain on transfer of land used for agricultural purposes amounting to Rs. 8,05,540/-? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding the order of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Hyderabad completely at variance without discussing and considering the facts of the case of the assessee as also the facts of the case of ACIT vs. N. Raghuverma,2013 42 ITS 421 Hyd.? iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, ITAT was justified in holding that the lands under consideration (khasra Nos. 886 & 890) were not used for agricultural purposes?";