TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 285
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessment year 2007-08, claiming following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that for claiming exemption under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act, the investment in the new land cannot be made in the name of wife of the assessee? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in not considering that decisions of Jai Narayan and Dinesh Verma of High Court of Punjab and Haryana are not applicable to the facts of the instant case and the facts of the case of the assessee are clearly distinguishable? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eet Kaur on 15.5.2007. As the value of the new agricultural land purchased by the assessee was more than that of the land sold, the assessee did not disclose any long term capital gain in regard to the same and claimed exemption under Section 54B of the Act. A notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 on the ground that the assessee had not disclosed the long term capital gain in his return of income. The respondent passed assessment order dated 18.03.2014, Annexure A.1, under Section 143(3) read with section 148 of the Act and in the said order, he did not allow exemption under Section 54B of the Act to the assessee on the ground that the land was purchased in the name of wife of the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vegetable Products Limited, (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) to contend that exemption should be allowed under Section 54B of the Act to the assessee. 5. The issue has been considered by this Court in Jai Narayan's case (supra) and stands concluded against the assessee. The Tribunal has also passed the impugned order following the said judgment. In Jai Naryana's case, the question was whether the assessee who purchased the land in his son and grand son's names after the sale of the agricultural land would be entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 54B of the Act. It was held by this Court that Section 54B of the Act nowhere suggests that the legislature intended to advance the benefit of the said sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act. The purchase of agricultural land by the assessee in his son or grandson's name, therefore, cannot be held entitled to exemption under section 54B of the Act. 11. We may make a brief reference to the decision relied upon by counsel for the assessee. Learned counsel mainly relied upon the decision in V.Natarajan's case (supra) with reference to section 54 of the Act. The Madras High Court in V.Natarajan's case (supra) was dealing with a case relating to Section 54 of the Act wherein the assessee who after selling his residential house had purchased another residential house in his wife's name. The court had concluded that the assessee in such circumstances was entitled to exemption under Section 54 of the Act. Afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Thus, on the basis of the finding recorded by the Tribunal, this court concluded that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal. The situation in the present case is different. In the present case, the land was purchased by the assessee in the name of his wife only. 8. In Kamal Wahal's case (supra), it was held by the Delhi High Court that for the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 54F of the Act, the new residential house need not be purchased by the assessee in his own name nor is it necessary that it should be purchased exclusively in his name. A purposive construction is to be preferred as against a literal construction. In view of the binding precedents of this Court in the cases of Jai Narayan and Di....