9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7-08) - - - Dated:- 15-11-2019 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by Shri Kirti Karan Garg, CA Respondent by Shri Surender Pal, Sr.DR ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 07/10/2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Karnal [in short the Ld. CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2007-08, raising following grounds: 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Karnal has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in assessing the long term capital gain at ₹ 1,31,55,507/- 2. That the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding in not giving the benefit of exemption u/s 54 B for the purchase of Agricultural land in the name of his spouse by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court where the judgment was proceeded on the basis that the spouse has invested the amount from herself and not on the basis of purchase of asset benami in the name of wife. 3. That the Worthy CIT(A) ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ural land. The claim of deduction under section 54B of the Act for investment in agricultural land of ₹ 15,97,793/- in the name of the assessee was allowed whereas the deduction under section 54B of the Act for the investment in the name of wife of the assessee was not allowed by the Assessing Officer. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee was aggrieved on the disallowance of deduction under section 54B of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee and upheld the disallowance relying on the decision of the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court (Jurisdictional High Court) dated 06/07/2015 in the case of Dinesh Verma, passed in ITA 381 of 2014. The relevant finding of learned CIT(A) is reproduced under: 2.2 Findings:- After going through the facts and submissions, the provision of the Income Tax Act as .well as various judicial pronouncements on this issue this ground is being finalized after making the following submissions:- 1) On going through the facts of the present case, it is clear that the assessee had made investment amounting to ₹ 1,31,55,507/- ,in the name of his wife and has subsequen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cally provided under the provision. 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 which is purchased has to be in the name of the assessee himself for seeking exemption under section 54B of the Act. The purchase of agricultural land by the assessee in his son or grandson's name, therefore, cannot be held entitled to exemption under section 54B of the Act. We may make a brief reference to the decision relied upon by counsel for the assessee. Learned counsel mainly relied upon the decision in V. Natarajan [2006] 287 ITR 271 (Mad), with reference to section 54 of the Act. The Madras High Court V. Natarajan's case [2006] 287 ITR 271 was dealing with a case relating o section 54 of the act wherein the assessee who after selling his residential house had purchased another residential house in his wife's name, the court had concluded that the assessee in such circumstances was entitled to exemption under section 54 of the Act. After giving our thoughtful consideration, we are unable to accept the view aslaid down V. Natrajan s Case [2006] 287 I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment in agricultural land made by the wife of the assessee. 4. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee reiterated the submission made before the Ld. CIT(A) and filed a written submission, which is reproduced under: .The assessee had filed the appeal before your goodself. In this regard, it is hereby stated that the assessee had sold an agriculture land. And with respect to the capital gain tax computation in A.Y. 2007-08, it is hereby submitted that the assessee has sold agricultural land measuring 7 Acre 2 Kanal 11 Marla against a consideration of ₹ 22688125.00. Its relevant cost index comes upto ₹ 3798430.00 (taking cost index as 519 of F.Y. 2006-07). The difference of sale price and index cost of the sold property came to ₹ 18889695/-. CAPITAL GAIN EXEMPTION U/S 54B The assessee has purchased agriculture land in the name of Smt. Santosh Rani w/o Shri Randhir Singh worth ₹ 1,33,01,8101- 1. ₹ 1,26,47,100 dated 08.01.2007) 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore the total capital gain exemption (including agricultural land) u/s 54B amounts to ₹ 1,48,59,602/-. 5. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the learned CIT(A) and submitted that there is no provision in section 54B for considering investment by the person other than the assessee. 6. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material available on record. The only issue involved in the case is, whether the investment on agricultural made by the spouse of the assessee is allowable as deduction under section 54B of the Act in the case of the assessee. Before us, the learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rohitas Singh (supra), wherein the ex parte order passed by the learned CIT(A) was restored back to the file of CIT(A) with the direction to pass a speaking order. In the said order, the Tribunal has not decided the issue in dispute whether the investment on agricultural made by the spouse of the assessee, can be allowed as deduction to the assessee under section 54B of the Act. The relevant part of the order of the Tribunal is reproduced as under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
