TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 54B of the Act. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 382/PUN/2015 And ITA No. 383/PUN/2015 - - - Dated:- 24-8-2017 - SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM For The Assessee : Shri P.I. Patwa For The Revenue : Shri Ajay Modi ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : These appeals by two assessees related to each other are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Pune for the assessment year 2007-08 in their respective cases. Both the impugned orders are dated 31-12-2014. Since, the issues raised in present appeals are emanating from same set of facts and identical grounds have been raised in both the appeals, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience and brevity the facts are taken from ITA No. 382/PUN/2015. The assessee in its return of income for the assessment year 2007-08 disclosed income from Long Term Capital Gain on sale of agriculture land. The assessee had share in the agriculture land comprising in S. No. 58/1/1-A S. No. 58/1/2-A admeasuring 11782 sq. mtrs. at Mauje Manjari Budruk, Tal.-Haveli, Distt.-Pune. The assessee r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... F) Vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No. 5323/Del/2004 for assessment year 1998-99 decided on 21-09-2007. The ld. AR submitted that the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the aforesaid case has granted benefit of exemption u/s. 54B to the assessee (HUF) by liberally interpreting the provisions of section 54B of the Act. The ld. AR further submitted that the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported as 319 ITR 306 and in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. etc. reported as 226 ITR 625 has held that when a provision of section in inserted to remedy unintended consequences, the provision has to be read retrospectively. Vs. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. etc. reported as 226 ITR 625 has held that when a provision of section in inserted to remedy unintended consequences, the provision has to be read retrospectively. 4. On the other hand Shri Ajay Modi representing the Department vehemently defended the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The ld. DR submitted that the assessment year under appeal is 2007-08. The provisions of section 54B have been amended to include HUF w.e.f. 01-04-2013. Prior to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hindu undivided family] for agricultural purposes [(hereinafter referred to as the original asset)], and the assessee has, within a period of two years after that date, purchased any other land for being used for agricultural purposes. After amendment to section 54B, along with individuals, HUF is also made eligible for the benefit of exemption under the provisions of said section. 6. We find that the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G.K. Devarajulu (supra) had occasion to deal with eligibility of HUF for claiming exemption u/s. 54B of the Act in period prior to amendment. The assessment year under appeal was 1972-73. The question of law before the Hon ble Court was : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's view that the Hindu undivided family is entitled to exemption under section 54B(ii) of the IT Act, is sustainable in law ? The Hon ble High Court answered the question in negative by holding as under : 5. .The words assessee or a parent of his occurring in s. 54B of the Act, in the context in which the word assessee has been used and from the meaning of the words assoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a parent of his as confined in its applicability only to such assessees, as are capable of having a parent. We have earlier indicated the interpretation we are inclined to put on the words occurring in s. 54B and the section should be made workable with the words employed, viz., the assessee or a parent of his' and the section could be worked only by holding that the assessee contemplated therein is an individual or a parent of that individual and that cannot be interpreted as including all assessees, by the expression assessee and excluding all those other than an individual by the words a parent of his . To accept the contention of learned counsel for the assessee would be to interpret the provision in a manner which would be totally out of context and to destroy the very purpose for which the provision had been enacted and would also lead to incongruous results. 7. The Hon ble High Court further observed that the intention of the Parliament was not to grant benefit of exemption u/s. 54B to HUF as similar amendment was carried out by the Parliament in section 54 to include HUF. The relevant extract of the observations of the Hon ble High Court in this regard reads ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
