TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 27.11.2009. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: For the assessment year 2000-01, the assessee filed a return of income on 30.01.2003, declaring acquisition of 1.22 acres of land during the financial year 1991-1992. Out of this, an extent of 70 cents was sold during the previous year 1999-2000. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act, in respect of long-term capital gains reinvested under the Capital Gains Accounts Scheme. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax, exercising power under Section 263 of the Act, issued a notice to the assessee to show cause why the assessment should not be revised in view of a wrongful allowance of exemption under Section 54B to the tune of Rs. 14,70,000/-. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....?" 6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Department submits that for the Assessment Year 2000-01, the exemption under Section 54B was not available to an assessee with the status of an HUF. It is contended that as the law stood prior to the 2013 amendment, the assessee who claims to be an HUF could not resort to the benefits of Section 54B. To support this contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the unamended provisions of Section 54B, which read as follows: "54B- Capital gain on transfer of land used for agricultural purposes not to be charged in certain cases:- [Subject to provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital gain arises] from the transfer of a capital asset being land which, in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chase of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139, shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return [such deposit being made in any case not later than the due date applicable in the case" He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G.K.Devarajulu reported in [1991] 56 Taxman 85 (MAD). 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the assessee, having cited the wrong provision, sought to rectify the error at the earliest stage, as seen in the reply of the assessee to the notice issued by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act. 8. For reasons best known, neither the Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the long-term specified asset is not less than the capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain shall not be charged under section 45; (b) if the cost of the long-term specified asset is less than the capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset, so much of the capital" 9. Unfortunately, we find that none of the authorities in this case considered the request to test whether the assessee was really entitled to an exemption under any other provision of law, if not under Section 54B of the Act. The pedantic approach adopted by the authorities throughout these proceedings is deprecable. 10. Authorities empowered to compute tax has to apply the law in all fairnes....