9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the Revenue Authorities should have been accepted by the authorities below. 3. That the Agricultural Land was not a capital asset as the population of the village in which agriculture land is located is less than one thousand as per, latest census for which evidence was led before the CIT(A). 4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in denying the benefit U/s 54B of the Act in respect of land purchased in the name of the wife of the Assessee and the same is, thus, not in the name of the third person. 5. That the benefit U/s 54B ought to have been given as per Judgment of Punjab and Harvana Hiah Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gurnam Sinqh 327 ITR 278 and the land had been purchased in the Joint name of wife and self, since the assessee had not been keeping good health. 6. That the submissions filed during the course of hearing has not been considered properly. 7. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee has sold agricultural land situated at Village- Raipur Khurd, HB No. 2, Mohali alongwith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alongwith two co-owners for Rs. 5,92,88,000/- out of which the assessee's share was Rs. 2,30,56,445/-. Subsequently, the assessee invested the sale consideration of above said land, in purchase of 4 pieces of land in his name & his wife's name (2 pieces in F.Y. 2014-15 8s one each in 2015-16 8s 2016-17), on which he claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act. The AO allowed the benefit of deduction u/s 54B to the extent of the consideration for land purchased by the assessee' in his name(that in wife's name excluded) within two years of sale amounting to Rs. 83,05,800/- and added the remaining amount of Rs. 1,47,50,645/- to the returned income of the assessee. There is no evidence that the sold land existed in the wife's name so exclusion is justified. Further, the issue as to whether the assessee would be entitled to avail benefit u/s 54B in case of property purchased in name of any third party including the taxpayer's wife was before Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT, Faridabad vs. Dinesh Verma [2015] 60 taxman.com 461, dated 06.07.2015, wherein the Court held that an assessee can purchase an asset or a part thereof in the name of his wife but he would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed aerially.: (1) not being more than two kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in item (a) and which has a population of more than ten thousand but not exceeding one lakh; or (II) not being more than six kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in item (a) and which has a population of more than one lakh but not exceeding ten lakh; or (III) not being more than eight kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in item (a) and which has a population of more than ten lakh." 4.3 The ld CIT(A) held that the present certificate from the authorities (claimed to be competent to issue such certificates), does not in any case certify that it conforms to the definition of agricultural land as per the provisions of the I.T Act. The finding of the AO, who on the basis of maps, had come to the conclusion that the said land was a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act and LTCG arising out of sale of the same was liable to be taxed subject to other provisions of the Act, remains intact. In light of the above discussion, there are no grounds to interfere with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at village Raipur Khurd. SAS Nagar (Mohali) i f falls out o f the Municipal Corporation as per Governments's Notification No. 14/261/2009- 2SS1/153866/31 dated 28.01.2014." 6.5 Reliance was placed upon the following case laws wherein it has been held that the area which is outside the municipality and having population less than 10000, the land would not be a capital asset as per the provisions of sec 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act: a) DCIT vs Capital Area bank Ltd. as reported in 123 TTJ 918 b) K. Parameshwaran vs. Income Tax Officer 2 ITD 371 c) Income Tax Officer vs Narain Singh 12 TTJ 396 d) Income Tax Officer vs. Chander HUF (2011) 47 SOT 17 (Chennai) e) Income Tax Officer vs. Uppala Bhatkavatsala Rao 12 Taxman 40 6.6 It was further submitted that it has even been held by various Hon'ble Courts that the certificate by the officials of the Land revenue department is more reliable than that of any Income Tax Department. Reliance in this regard is being placed in the following cases: a) CIT vs K.R.N Prabhakaran HUF (Madras HC) as reported in 393 ITR 175 wherein it has been held as under: "Report of Inspector of Survey and Land Records more reliable than that of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer has not accepted the partial Investment made by the Assessee in the purchase of Agricultural land in the name of his wife. In this regard we rely upon the following Judgments of the Hon'ble Courts wherein it has been held that even the Investment in the name of family members of the Assessee is eligible for claiming exemption as per the provisions of sec 54B of the Act: a) Sh Jhanda Singh vs ITO in ITA no. 512/Chd/2017 order dated 25.02.2019 b) Laxmi Narayan vs CIT as reported in 89 taxmann.com 334 (Raj HC) c) CIT V/s Shri Kamal Wahal, ITA. No.4/2013 dated 11.1.2013 DEL-HC d) CIT V/s Ravinder Kumar Arora I.T.A. No.l 106/2011 order dated 27.9.2011 DEL-HC e) Shri Raja Ram Patidarvs ITO in ITA No. 371/Ind/2015 order dated 28.09.2018 f) CIT Vs. Gurnam Singh (P&H) (2010) 327 ITR 278 g) ACIT Vs. Deepak Kumar Dhawan (2014)23 TTJ 600 (Ind) h) DIT Vs. Jennifer Bhide (2011) 15 Taxmann.com 82 (Kar.) 6.10 It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has stated that the certificates as filed by the Assessee do not certify that the Land in question was used for agricultural purposes and thus the Assessee is not entitled to exemption u/sec 54B of the Act- In this r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... measured aerially,- (I) not being more than two kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in item (a) and which has a population of more than ten thousand but not exceeding one lakh; or (II) not being more than six kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in item (a) and which has a population of more than one lakh but not exceeding ten lakh; or (III) not being more than eight kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in item (a) and which has a population of more than ten lakh. 11. As per section 2(14)(iii)(a), for an agricultural land to fall outside the scope of the definition of a capital asset, the agriculture land should not be situated in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality and such area should have population of not less than 10,000 accordingly to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published before the first day of the previous year. The Bombay High Court in case of PCIT vs Anthony John Pereira (supra) has held that the use of the word "and" between the two conditions is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
