आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "बी" न्यायपीठ पणु े में ।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1678/PUN/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 आदेश/ORDER PER DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 26.06.2024 framed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2014-15 which is arising out of order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act dated 21.12.2018.

2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

(i) The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs 1,14.25,000/- u/s

69A as unexplained money in respect of 50% of sale consideration on sale of property.

(ii)The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the sale consideration was received on sale of land and the income therefrom is assessable as capital gains and the same cannot be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A.

(iii)The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of exemption u/s 548 in respect of investment in agricultural land and all the conditions have been complied with (iv) The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the appellant had made substantial payments towards consideration for purchase of the new agricultural land and possession was obtained in prescribed time thereby proving the effective dominion over the property.

(v) The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that merely because conveyance deed could not be executed for the reasons beyond the control of the appellant could not be reason to hold that the purchase was not complete.

(vi) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or substitute any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and based on the information about purchase and sale of property by the assessee received by the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO), notice u/s 148 of the Act validly issued and served upon the assessee followed by serving other statutory notices. The assessee did not furnish any return in compliance to notice furnished u/s 148 of the Act. Ld. AO based on the details available on records observed that the assessee has sold land claimed to be agricultural land for a consideration of Rs. 2,28,50,000/- Assessee being 50% owner is entitled to the sale consideration of Rs. 1,14,25,000/- During the course of proceedings assessee submitted that the said sale consideration has been invested for purpose of another agricultural land and that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 54B of the Act. It was also demonstrated that the sale consideration money has been paid for purchasing another agricultural land within the prescribed time limit provided u/s 54B of the Act. However as the purchase deed was not registered in the name of assessee within prescribed time limit u/s 54B of the Act, Ld. AO denied the claim made u/s 54B and made addition u/s 69A of the Act at Rs.

1,14,25,000/- Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and he also dismissed the assessee’s appeal observing as below:-

5.6.3 On perusal of the above, for claiming benefits provided under section

548 of the Act (itle/possession of the immovable property must pass to the transferee. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, it is seen that section 54B(1) requires purchasing of new agricultural land within the period of