9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - ITA No. 533/CHD/2022 - - - Dated:- 10-5-2023 - Shri A.D. Jain, Vice President And Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri B.M. Monga, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also the assessee's Taxation Advisor; that earlier, the e-mail put on the e-portal of the Income Tax Website was [email protected] which neither belonged to the office of the said Shri Rakesh Dhall, C.A., nor to the assessee; that it might be the email Id of some earlier counsel; that the ld. CIT(A) s order dated 27.03.2022 might have also been sent on the said email Id; that now, the email Ids on the Income Tax Portal have been corrected and two email Ids namely [email protected] and [email protected] have been put as registered email Ids on the profile of Income Tax Portal of the assessee; that the ld. CIT(A) s aforesaid order dated 27.03.2022 was not received by either the assessee, or Shri Rakesh Dhall, C.A. bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee claimed exemption u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO), however, refused to allow the claim made. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT, Faridabad Vs Dinesh Verma passed on 06.07.2015, in ITA No. 3812 of 2014(60 taxmann.com 461(P H), wherein, it was held that if the subsequent property is purchased by a person other than the assessee, including his close relative, even his wife and children, the assessee would not be entitled to the benefit conferred by the provisions of Section 54B of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs. 46,93,099/- to the income of the assessee. 6. On appeal, by virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ictional High Court in the cases of CIT, Faridabad Vs Dinesh Verma 60 taxmann.com 461 (P H) and Jai Narain Vs Income Tax Officer , has not successfully been rebutted on behalf of the assessee; that these decisions were also reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Kamal Kant Kamboj Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Jagadhari, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana , order dated 24.05.2017, passed in ITA No. 104 of 2017. It has been contended that accordingly, there being no merit whatsoever in the appeal filed by the assessee, the same be dismissed while confirming the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 9. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. In Kamal Kant Kamboj (supra), relying on its earlier decisions in C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f u/s 54B of the Act would not be allowed; that in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gurnam Singh , 327 ITR 278 (P H), the assessee, out of the sale proceeds of the agricultural land sold by him, had purchased some other piece of land in his name and in the name of his only son who was bachelor and depending upon him, for being used for agricultural purposes within the stipulated period; that the pure finding of fact had been recorded by the Tribunal that merely because in the Sale Deed, his only son was also shown as co-owner, it did not make any difference because the purchased land was being used by the assessee for agricultural purposes; that thus, on the basis of the finding recorded by the Tribunal, it had been concluded by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e language is plain, the fact that the significance of giving effect to it may lead to some absurd result is not a factor to be taken into account in interpreting a provision; that it is for the legislature to step in and remove the absurdity; that on the one hand, if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, then the construction which favours the assessee must be adopted; that there is no quarrel with this proposition; that that was a case in respect of Section 271(1)(a)(i) of the Act and the principle of law enunciated therein is well recognized; that however, the situation in the case at hand being different, the assessee could not derive any advantage from the said decision; that in the case at hand, exemption u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
