TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is being used by the assessee only for agricultural purpose and merely because in the sale deed his name was not written 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 someone else. See Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana-I Versus Shri Gurnam Singh [2008 (4) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] - Decided against revenue. - ITA-118-2016 - - - Dated:- 16-2-2017 - S. C. Sharma And Rajeev Kumar Dubey, JJ. ORDER Parties through their counsel. Present appeal has been filed under Section 260 of Income Tax Act, 1961 being aggrieved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntial question of law is arising in the present appeal by virtue of the judgment delivered by High Court of Punjab and Haryana, reported in 2008 [170] TAXMAN 160 (PUNJ. HAR.). Paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the aforesaid judgment read as under:- 3. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the respondent filed an appeal before the CIT (Appeals), who vide his order dated 17-12-2002 allowed the same and set aside the action of the Assessing Officer in denying the deduction under section 54F of the act to the respondent. Against the said order, the revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT, who vide its order dated 24-4-2006 has dismissed the appeal, while observing as under:- The issue before us revolves around allowability of deduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rarnama'/agreement to sale is analyzed one undisputed fact is oozing out that the sale proceeds of the agricultural land were in fact used to purchase another agricultural land. Section 54B speaks about transfer of capital asset being land within a specified period and another land is purchased for agricultural purposes, then it shall be dealt with in accordance with the provision of this section. It is not the case of the revenue that the capital gain was not utilized by the assessee for the purchase of new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139. In fact, if the facts as detailed in the 'ikrarnama' are analyzed, the capital gains was utilized by the assessee for purchasing the new asset. Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icultural purposes. Out of sale proceeds of the said sale, the assessee has purchased other piece of land (land in question) in his name and in the name of his only son, who was bachelor and dependent upon him, for being used for agricultural purposes within the stipulated time. Further, it is not the case of the revenue that from the sale proceeds of the agricultural land earlier owned by the assessee, the land in question was purchased for any other purpose than the agricultural purpose. Undisputedly, the purchased land is being used by the assessee only for agricultural purpose and 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 beca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stranger or somebody who is unconnected with him. He has purchased it only in the name of his wife. There is also no dispute that the entire investment has come out of the sale proceeds and that there was no contribution from the assessee's wife. 10. Having regard to the rule of purposive construction and the object which Section 54F seeks to achieve and respectfully agreeing with the judgment of this Court, we answer the substantial question of law framed by us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue has held that the assessee has purchased the agricultural land and, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
