TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 299
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red to as 'Act'. 2. At the outset itself, it was pointed out that the solitary issue in the present appeal pertained to claim of exemption u/s 54 of the Act of Long Term Capital Gains earned by the assessee being invested in another property. That the AO had restricted the claim of exemption to the extent of assessee's share in new property purchased, being 34 %, while the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the entire claim on noting the fact that the entire capital gains earned by the assessee had been invested in the new property purchased. The Ld. DR drew our attention to the grounds raised by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) as under: "(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT (A)'s order is not perv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in contravention of jurisdictional division bench decision in the case of Jai Narayaii Vs Income Tax Officer, [2008] 306 ITR 335 (P&H) wherein it was held that a reading of section 54B of the Act nowhere suggests that legislature intended to advance the benefit of the said section to an assessee who purchased the agriculture land in the name of a third person. (vi) It is prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing officer may be restored. (vii) The appellant craves leave to add or amend any grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard or is disposed off." 3. Referring to the same he contended that primarily the contention of the Revenue was that the CIT(A)'s order was not in consonance with the decision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee sold a residential property for a consideration of Rs. 4,35,00,0007- on which Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) was calculated at Rs. 4,34,59,0007-. The assessee invested the whole sale consideration of Rs. 4,35,00,000/- in purchase of another residential property jointly with her daughter and her son in law for a consideration of Rs. 5,35,50,000/-. The balance amount was contributed by her son in law. The proportionate share of assessee, her son in law & her daughter in the purchased property was 34%, 33%, 33% respectively. The AO was of opinion that since the share of assessee in new property was 34%, therefore she would be entitled for claim of exemption u/s 54 of the Act to the extent of 34% (Rs. 1,47,76,0737-) of total LTCG investe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 44.76 lakhs as is evident from the return of income filed by him. 2. Whether the respondent-assesses was entitled to the benefit under Section 54Bof the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the property purchased from the sale proceeds in the name of his wife?" The adjudication of the court on the above issues is replicated below: As we mentioned earlier, the respondent sold his agricultural land for a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs Out of the sale proceeds he invested only a sum of Rs. 44.76 lakhs towards the purchase of another agricultural plot. The balance consideration of Rs. 16.84 lakhs in respect of that plot was paid by the respondent's wife. It is not the respondent's case that it is actually he who paid the amount of Rs. 16.84 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., therefore, overruled. It is declared that respondent shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 54B on the basis that he invested only a sum of Rs. 44,76,000/- in the agricultural property purchased by him after the sale of the agricultural property earlier owned by him. Even the additional question No. 7 raised by us in our order dated 02.03.2015 is answered in favour of the appellant/department. Though the case at hand pertains to that of claim of exemption u/s 54 of the Act on LTCG but the ratio of the case mentioned supra would be applicable in the instant case also. In the instant case it is not disputed that the assessee had not invested the LTCG in purchase of residential property within stipulated time. The AO had restricted th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... allowed." 6. We have considered the contentions made by both the parties before us. We have also gone through the order of the Ld.CIT(A). The only contention of the Revenue being that the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dinesh Verma(supra) has not been followed by the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld.CIT(A) had taken note of the said decision. He had, we find, taken note of the decision and applied the same to the facts of the present case noting categorically that though the said decision pertained to claim of exemption u/s 54 B of the Act, yet the ratio would be applicable in the instant case also. The Ld. CIT(A),we find, had thereafter proceeded to note the facts of the present case being that the assess....