TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee alongwith his brother sold agricultural land in Village Ratoli, Yamuna Nagar for ₹ 72,00,000/- on 09.10.2006. Out of his half share, he purchased another agricultural land for ₹ 35,51,000/- in the name of his wife on 15.5.2007. As the value of the said land was more than that of the land sold, he did not disclose any long term capital gain and claimed exemption under Section 54B of the Act. Since the issue has already been concluded against the assessee by this Court in Jai Naryan’s case (2007 (8) TMI 295 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT) and the Tribunal has also followed the said judgment, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to controvert the applicability of the said decision or to show any error in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the other decisions on the issue of section 54B in terms that exemption shall be allowed to an assessee under section 54B of the Income Tax Act even if the investment is made in the name of spouse of the assessee? (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in not considering that the provision of section 54B does not state that new agricultural land should be purchased in the name of the assessee only for the purpose of claiming exemption under section 54B of the Act? (v) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in not considering the ratio of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The assessee inter alia pleaded that exemption under section 54B of the Act should be allowed because judgment of this court in Jai Naryan s case (Annexure P.7) was a prior judgment and that judgment in Gurnam Singh s case (Annexure P.9) was later judgment. Further, Section 54B of the Act does not specifically mention that the land should be purchased in the name of the assessee only and therefore the investment can be made in the name of wife of the assessee. Vide order dated 29.3.2016, Annexure A.2, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. The assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 7.7.2016, Annexure A.3, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the instant appeal by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd even in the name of a third person. 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. Therefore, purchase of agricultural land by the assessee in the name of his son or grandson does not qualify for exemption under Section 54B of the Act. The relevant observations read thus:- 10. In interpreting the words contained in a statute, the court has not only to look at the words but also to look at the context and the object of such words relating to such matter and interpret the meaning intended to be conveyed by the use of the words under the circumstances. The word assessee o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o accept the view as laid down in V.Natarajan s case (supra). 6. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad vs. Dinesh Verma, (2015) 60 Taxmann.com 461 (P H), the assessee sold the land by an agreement for a consideration of ₹ 60 lacs. He purchased another immoveable agricultural property within two years and utilized some amount out of the total amount. The balance consideration was paid by his wife. The Assessing Officer held the gain to be a short term capital gain. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal had held in favour of the assessee. It was held that where the assessee had established that he had been using land for a period of two years immediately preceding the date on which he transferred the same, exemption under section 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we are unable to subscribe to the aforesaid view in Kamal Wahal s case (supra). 9. Similar was the position in Natarajan s case (supra). The said judgment was not accepted in Jai Naryan s case (supra). The opinion in Mrs. Jennifer Bhide s case expressed by Karnataka High Court being contrary to decisions of this Court in Jai Narayan and Dinesh Verma s cases (supra), the assessee cannot derive any advantage from the said decision. In Vegetable Products Limited s case (supra), it was held by the Apex Court that the duty of the court is to read the section, understand its language and give effect to the same. If the language is plain, the fact that the consequence of giving effect to it may lead to some absurd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
