9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... word "assessee" occurred in section 54B must be interpreted in same manner as occurring with the context and subject of its usage. Even from that angle since the son of the assessee was also joint owner of the land, which was sold (because name of the son was there in the land which the assessee was holding though beneficial owner is only the assessee). Therefore in our opinion, if the land was purchased in the name of the son of the assessee because of old age and other technical reasons, the assessee would still be entitled to deduction under section 54B of the Act. Accordingly we set aside the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under section 54B of the Act. - Deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s reported in Jai Narayan v. ITO [2008] 306 ITR 335 (P&H) and not following the later judgment as reported in CIT v. Gurnam Singh [2010] 327 ITR 278 (P&H). 5. That the addition has been upheld against the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made during the course of hearing has not been considered properly. 3. After hearing both parties, we find that during assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that a search was conducted on premises of property dealers and some documents regarding sale of land were found because of which proceedings under section 153C were initiated against the assessee. Ultimately capital gain was computed. The assessee had also claimed deduction under section 54B of the Act. This deductio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir, there was no purpose for purchasing the new land in the name of the assessee himself and that is why land was purchased in the name of his son. Further the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has clearly held in the case of CIT v. Gurnam Singh [2010] 327 ITR 278 (P&H) that if the land was purchased by the assessee along with his son then the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 54B. It was further pleaded that the assessee is only a farmer and does not have any other income and in this regard an affidavit of the assessee has been filed. It was pointed out that in the case of Jai Narayan v. ITO [2008] 306 ITR 335 (P&H) the land was purchased in name of his son and grandson that is why a different view was taken. 7. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee's son was shown in the sale deed as co-owner, it did not make any difference. It was not the case of the Revenue that the land in question was exclusively used by his son. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 54B." Even if we consider the decision of Jai Narayan v. ITO [2008] 306 ITR 335 (P&H) the court has simply stated that the word "assessee" occurred in section 54B must be interpreted in same manner as occurring with the context and subject of its usage. Even from that angle since the son of the assessee was also joint owner of the land, which was sold (because name of the son was there in the land which the assessee was holding though beneficial owner is only the assessee). Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
