TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r And Sh. T.S. Kapoor, Hon ble Accountant Member Appellant by: Sh. Dr. Kanchan Garg (DR.) Respondent by: Sh. S.S.Kalra (CA.) ORDER T. S. Kapoor (AM): This is an appeal filed by Revenue against the order of learned CIT(A), Ludhiana, dated 17.10.2014, for the Asst. Year 2009-10. 2. The following grounds of appeal has been taken by the Revenue. (i) Whether the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is right in allowing the exemption u/s 54B to the extent of ₹ 59.50 lacs where investment is made in the name of Smt. Kashmir Kaur (Wife) and Smt. Balwinder Kaur W/o Sh. Dalbir Singh not in the name of the assessee Sh. Jit Singh. (ii) The appellant craves leave t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that if the investment made by assessee in the name of his wife and Bhabhi are considered the figure of capital gain will be in negative and even if the investment in the name of his Bhabhi is not considered even then taxable capital gain will work out to be ₹ 2,02,955/- and he stated that assessee will not have any objection if the addition to this extent is confirmed. The learned AR in this respect relied upon the case law of CIT vs. Kamal Wahal, 351 ITR 0004 decided by Hon ble Delhi High Court, for the proposition that investment of capital gains in the name of wife of an assessee is an allowable exemption. The learned AR further relied upon the order of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gurnam Singh 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... greement to sale had purchased agricultural land much more than sale consideration but even if registered value after taking into account the indexed cost is considered the taxable capital gain is negative. The learned CIT(A) has admitted the additional evidence and after obtaining remand report from the Assessing Officer allowed relief to the assessee. In the remand report at paper book page 14 15 the Assessing Officer has accepted that the land which was sold and which was purchased was an agricultural land and further he has accepted that assessee had paid an amount of ₹ 78,36,115/- for the eviction of land and has further verified that the assessee had made investment in the purchase of agricultural land to the tune of ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this case the assessee had sold the agricultural land which was being used by him for agricultural 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
