2008 (4) TMI 28 - HC - Income Tax

Exemption / Deduction u/s 54B of capital gain arising from sale of agricultural land and investment in the name of son by the assessee - merely because in the sale deed his only son was also shown as co-owner the ITAT has rightly come to the conclusion that it does not make any difference because the purchased land is being used by the assessee for agricultural purposes. It is not the case of the revenue that the said land is being used exclusively by his son exemption allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 54B of the Income Tax Act regarding deduction for agricultural land purchase in the name of the son of the assessee.

Analysis:
1. The appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) regarding the deduction under Section 54B of the Act for agricultural land purchased in the name of the respondent's son. The central question was whether the deduction could be allowed when the land was bought by the son and not the assessee directly.

2. The respondent, an illiterate agriculturist, had sold agricultural land and purchased new land in his and his son's name. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction under Section 54B, arguing that the exemption applied only if the assessee invested in purchasing agricultural land directly. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) later allowed the deduction, leading to the revenue's appeal before the ITAT.

3. The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal, emphasizing that Section 54B requires the capital gains from the sale of land to be reinvested in another land for agricultural purposes. The ITAT noted that the land was bought using the sale proceeds, even though it was registered in the son's name. It highlighted that the son was dependent on the father, and the land was being used for agricultural purposes, meeting the conditions of Section 54B.

4. The High Court reviewed the ITAT's decision and found no substantial question of law for consideration. It upheld the ITAT's findings, stating that the purchased land was used for agricultural purposes, and the son's inclusion in the ownership did not impact the eligibility for the deduction under Section 54B. The court emphasized that the land's actual usage for agricultural activities was the key factor, not the co-ownership arrangement.

5. The High Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose from the case, as the ITAT's decision was based on factual findings and interpretation of Section 54B. The court affirmed that the land's intended agricultural use, the reinvestment of sale proceeds, and the dependency of the son on the assessee supported the allowance of the deduction, regardless of the son's ownership status.