TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y erred in upholding the illegal order passed by the AO, whereby he has denied the legitimate claim of the appellant u/s 54B of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee and thereby denying the exemption of Rs. 46,93,099/- u/s 54B of the Act, particularly when the assessee has duly reutilized the sale proceeds/consideration in purchase of new property and fulfilled all the conditions of Section 54B. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed off. 2. As per the Registry, there is delay of 35 days in filing the appeal. According to the application for condonation of delay, there is a delay of 35 days in filing th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ays has occurred; that further, the assessee is a villager, an agriculturist and an illiterate person, who is not at all tax savvy; and that therefore, the delay of 35 days in filing the appeal be condoned. 3. The application is accompanied by an affidavit of the assessee. 4. In view of the contents of the application for condonation of delay, we find that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Otherwise too, it cannot be said that the assessee would have stood to gain anything by delaying the institution of his own appeal. Accordingly, the delay of 35 days is hereby condoned. 5. Apropos the merits of the case as per the material on record, during the year under consideration, the assessee had sold....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Capital Gain in purchase of a new property, thereby fulfilling all the requisite conditions of the provisions of Section 54B of the Act. As before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has placed reliance on the following case laws : (i) CIT Vs Podar Cement (P) Ltd [1997] 92 Taxman 541/226 ITR 625 (SC). (ii). Mir Gulam AN Khan Vs CIT [1987] 165 ITR 228 (iii). Jagpal Singh Vs ITO [2010] 186 Taxman 26 (Delhi) (iv) CIT vs Kamal Wahal [2013] 351 ITR 4/214 Taxman 287/ 30 taxmann.com 34 (Delhi) (v) CIT Vs Ravinder Kumar Arora [2012] 342 ITR 38/ [2011] 203 Taxman 289/ 15 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi) (vi) CIT Vs Natarajan [2006] 287 ITR 271 /154 Taxman 399 (Mad) (vii) Grandhi Kamaraj Mangaraj [ITA no.432/CIT(A)A/JA/10-11 ] (viii) N. Ram Kumar Vs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r being used for agricultural purposes", which necessarily means that the new asset has to be in the name of the assessee himself; that therefore, purchase of agricultural land by the assessee in the name of his son or grandson etc. does not qualify for exemption u/s 54B of the Act; that in interpreting the words contained in a Statute, the Court has not only to look at the words, but also to look at the context and the object of such words relating to such matter and interpret the meaning intended to be conveyed by the use of the words under the circumstances; that the word "assessee" occuring in Section 54B must be interpreted in such a manner as to accord with the context and subject of its usage; that wherever the legislature intended t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssary that it should be purchased exclusively in his name; that a purposive construction is to be preferred as against a literal construction; that in view of the binding precedents of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases of "Jai Narain" (supra) and "Dinesh Verma" (supra), the said view in "Kamal Wahal" was not being subscribed to; that similar was the position in the case of "Commissioner of Income Tax Vs V.Natarajan" 287 ITR 271 (Madras); that therein, the decision in Jai Narain's case (supra) had not been accepted; that the opinion in "Director of Income Tax, International Taxation, Bangalore Vs Mrs. Jennifer Bhide" 15 taxmann.com 82 (Kar) being contrary to the decisions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases of "Jai Nar....