9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue of the Government, which the law does not permit. Thus, Tribunal has rightly disallowed the exemption u/s 54B - Decided against the assessee. - D.B. IT APPEAL NO. 112 OF 2012 - - - Dated:- 19-5-2012 - ARUN MISHRA, MAHESH BHAGWATI, JJ. ORDER Mahesh Bhagwati, J. Challenge in this Income Tax Appeal is to the order dated 22nd November, 2011, whereby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee-appellant, while the appeal filed by revenue was allowed for statistical purposes. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case, in nub, are that agricultural land ad-measuring 1.40 ha., situated in village Balmukandpura was inherited by the assessee-appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eduction under Section 54(B) would be available on the issue of purchase of land in the name of his son and wife. The Tribunal is found to have placed reliance on the judgments of various High Courts and held thus: "The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vipin Malik (HUF) v. CIT , 330 ITR 309 has held that residential house which was purchased or constructed had to be of the same assessee whose agricultural land was sold. In the case before Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the residential house was in the individual name of the assessee and his mother while the land belonged to HUF. The deduction u/s. 54F was not allowed in the case of Jai Narain v. ITO , 306 ITR 335 in which it was held that term 'assessee' mentioned in Section 54B i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued liberally in favour of assessee, but the learned Tribunal arbitrarily disallowed the claim of the appellant-assessee and upheld the findings of the CIT (A) observing that no deduction under Section 54B of the Act would be available to the assessee-appellant on the issue of purchase of land in the name of his son and daughter-in-law, hence the impugned order needs to be set-aside. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is noticed that the appellant-assess sold the agricultural land, which was mutated in his name, for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,61,09,100/-. Thereafter out of the selling price, the appellant-assessee purchased land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
