9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 223 - AT - Income TaxExemption u/s 54B - LTCG was invested in the purchase of another agricultural land in the name of his wife - Benefit of exemption denied on the ground that investment was not made in the own name of the assessee - HELD THAT - In Kamal Kant Kamboj 2017 (8) TMI 285 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT relying on its earlier decisions of Dinesh Verma 2015 (7) TMI 486 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT and Jai Narain 2007 (8) TMI 295 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT has held that as held in Jai Narain s case, Section 54B of the Income Tax Act nowhere suggests that the legislature intended to advance the benefit of the said Section to an assessee who purchases agricultural land in the name of a third person; that the term assessee is qualified by the expression purchased any other land for being used for agricultural purposes , which necessarily means that the new asset has to be in the name of the assessee himself; that therefore, purchase of agricultural land by the assessee in the name of his son or grandson etc. does not qualify for exemption u/s 54B. Assessee would not be entitled to the benefit conferred by the provisions of Section 54B - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
The judgment involves the following Issues: 1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Denial of exemption u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act. Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal: The appeal in question faced a delay of 35 days in filing. The reason for the delay was attributed to the assessee being a villager, an agriculturist, and an uneducated person not well-versed in tax matters. The delay was explained to have occurred due to the incorrect email address on the Income Tax Portal, which led to the non-receipt of the order by the assessee or the tax advisor. The Tribunal, after considering the application for condonation of delay and the accompanying affidavit, found that there was sufficient cause for the delay and hence condoned the delay of 35 days. Issue 2: Denial of exemption u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act: The assessee had sold urban agricultural land and invested the Long Term Capital Gain in the purchase of another agricultural land in the name of his wife. The claim for exemption u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act was denied by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on a decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The AO held that if the subsequent property is purchased by a person other than the assessee, including close relatives, the benefit of Section 54B would not apply. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, leading to the further appeal by the assessee. In the appeal, the assessee contended that all conditions of Section 54B had been met, and reliance was placed on various case laws to support the claim for exemption. However, the ld. CIT(A) relied on previous decisions of the High Court, emphasizing that the new asset must be in the name of the assessee himself to qualify for exemption u/s 54B. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and precedents, concluded that the case was squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and found no error in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the decision to deny the exemption u/s 54B. Separate Judgement: The judgment was pronounced by Shri A.D. Jain, Vice President.
|
