SADU RAM SAINI, Jaipur V. DCIT, Jaipur

ITA 114/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5344 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MEENA DHK
• Section: 54B; 54F

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KN O] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YA DAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 114/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 . SEDU RAM SAINI, NAHARWALI, PITHAWAS, VILLAGE: HATHOJ, KALWAD ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AYTPS 3976 Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : NONE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI M. S. MEENA LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 26.02.2016. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.04.2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI R.P. TOLANI, J.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL. THE GROUND RAISED IN TH E APPEAL IS AS UNDER :- THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE A O DENYING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE IT ACT AS THE NE W ASSET WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF WIFE BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS : 2 ITA NO. 114/JP/2014 SEDU RAM SAINI VS. DCIT CC-2 JAIPUR. 5.3. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR AND FIND THAT THERE IS N O DISPUTE THAT LAND WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF WIFE AND NOT IN THE N AME OF THE SELLER OF LAND, WHO IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX. THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD THE LAND ON WHICH LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN I S SOUGHT TO BE TAXED. THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT U/S 54B OF T HE IT ACT FOR HAVING PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND AGAINST THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE AO BY VIRTUE OF PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 54B OF THE IT ACT. FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, THE PROVISIONS ARE NOT BEING REPRODUCED. 5.4. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON A NUMBER OF JUDG MENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE IT ACT. TH E AR HAS CITED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 64 OF THE IT ACT AS WELL. HOW EVER, NO JUDGMENT HAS BEEN CITED BY THE AR WHICH DIRECTLY COVERS THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE IT ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE C ASE LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. WHILE DOING SO, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON JAI NARAYAN VS. ITO, 306 ITR 335 (P&H). 3. NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. WRITTEN SUBMISS IONS ARE FILED. THE APPEAL IS FILED LATE BY 18 DAYS CONTENDING AS UNDER :- THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE ORDER OF HON. CIT (A), ALWAR ON 28.11.2013. THE PAPERS WERE HANDED OVER TO MY COUNC IL MR. RAJENDRA SHARMA, CA FOR FILING APPEAL BEFORE YOUR GOODSELF. SINCE HE HAD TO GO TO BOMBAY FOR CRITICAL BRAIN OPERATION OF HIS SON-I N-LAW, HE COULD NOT PREPARE THE APPEAL. HIS MOTHER IN LAW MRS. MANMOHIN I DEVI ALSO EXPIRED ON 03,02.2014. MY COUNSEL MR. SHARMA HAVE N O BROTHER IN LAW HE HAD LOOK AFTER ENTIRE AFFAIRS POST DEATH OF HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS BEYOND MY CONTROL TO SUBMIT THE APPEAL IN TIME. YOU ARE THEREFORE REQUESTED TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 18 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. IT IS THEREFORE, REQUESTED TO KINDLY CONDONE THE DE LAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND ACCEPT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 3 ITA NO. 114/JP/2014 SEDU RAM SAINI VS. DCIT CC-2 JAIPUR. A PERUSAL OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL O N RECORD AND THE CONTENTION OF LD. D/R, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVE NTED BY A SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN FILING THE APPEAL LATE, WHICH IS CONDONED. 4. APROPOS MERIT, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE NEW LAND WAS PURCHASED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME AND OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE LAND SOLD BY ASSESSEE. THE ONLY REASON FOR DENIAL OF THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTI ON 54B IS TECHNICAL IN NATURE I.E. THE LAND WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF WIFE. WE SEE NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE OBSERVATIONS OF LD. CIT (A) IN PARA 5.4. OF HIS ORD ER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO CITE ANY DIRECT CASE LAW. PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHO WS THAT ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO AND LD. CIT (A) HAD RELIED ON A CATENA OF JUDGMENTS HOLDING THAT THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION WILL BE AVAILABLE EVEN IF THE NEW ASSET I S PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF WIFE. SOME OF THE JUDGMENTS ARE AS UNDER :- CIT VS. T.N. ARVINDA REDDY 116 ITR 551 (SC) V. NATRAJAN VS. CIT 287 ITR 271 (MADRAS HC) CIT VS. PODDAR CEMENT PVT. LTD. 226 ITR 625 (SC) ITO VS. SMT. SAVITA RANI 51 ITD 621 (DEL.) C.V. RAMNATHAN VS. CIT 125 ITR 191 (MAD.) IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IT IS A SETTLED POSITION TH AT THE NEW ASSET PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF WIFE IS ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 54B. CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE REVERSED. THE A SSESSEES CLAIM IS ALLOWED. 4 ITA NO. 114/JP/2014 SEDU RAM SAINI VS. DCIT CC-2 JAIPUR. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.04.2016 . SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (R.P.TOLANI) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 22/04/2016 DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI SEDU RAM SAINI, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 114/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR