Sh. Kamal Kant Kamboj, Yamunanagar V. ITO, Yamunanagar

ITA 390/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9813 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGHDR
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 54B; 54F; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.390/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI KAMAL KANT KAMBOJ, VS THE ITO HOUSE NO. 1840, WARD -3, SECTOR 17, HUDA, YAMUNA NAGAR. JAGADJRI, YAMUNA NAGAR. PAN: AAWPK5193J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RUCHESH SINH A RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH,DR DATE OF HEARING : 04.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.07.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), PANCHKULA DATED 29.03.20 16 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. I HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3. THE ONLY QUESTION INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS WHETHER ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SE CTION 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURE LAND 2 PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE SMT. MANJIT KAUR. 4. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSE E ALONGWITH SHRI SANJAY KUMAR HAD SOLD LAND MEASURING 24 KANALS IN VILLAGE RATOLI, YAMUNA NAGAR FOR RS. 72,00,000/- ON 09.10.2006 TO M/S ZION PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. FARIDABAD. SINCE THE LAND WAS WITHIN 8 KM OF THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT AND CAPITAL GAIN ON SUC H SALE WAS TAXABLE, THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED THE RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS HALF SHAR E IN THE PROPERTY THEREFORE, CAPITAL GAIN ARISE ON TRANS FER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DECLARE AN Y CAPITAL GAIN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE HAD INVE STED SALE PROCEEDS IN PURCHASE OF NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND AT MANJA SHAHKAMPUR, JAGADHRI AND ASSESSEE HAD GOT LAN D IN THE JOINT NAME OF HIS WIFE. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOUND THAT THE AFORESAID AGRICULTURE LAND SITUATED AT MAN JA SHAHKAMPUR, JAGADHRI WAS PURCHASED BY SMT. MANJIT KAUR WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RS. 35,51,000/- ON 15.05.2007 AND NOT IN THE JOINT NAME WITH HER HUSBA ND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, WAS OF THE VIEW T HAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTIO N 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISTINGUISHED THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HAR YANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GURNAM SINGH 327 I TR 278 RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER 3 RELIED UPON JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAI NARAIN V ITO 306 ITR 335 A ND HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U NDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 26,45,750/- AROSE ON THE SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND. IT WAS, THEREFORE, ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE L D. CIT(APPEALS) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT HALF SHARE O F SALE PROCEEDS HAVE BEEN INVESTED IN PURCHASE OF NEW AGRICULTURE LAND IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE SMT. MANJI T KAUR. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE P UNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI GURNAM SIN GH (SUPRA), DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V KAMA L WAHAL 351 ITR 4 AND JUDGEMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V VS NATARAJAN 287 ITR 271. THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT LATER DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GURNAM SINGH (SUP RA) MAY BE FOLLOWED AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PURPOSIV E CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE PREFERRED AS AGAINST A LITERA L CONSTRUCTION. SECTION 54B DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY ME NTION THE LAND SHOULD BE PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSE E ONLY. THE ASSESSEE COMPLETED ALL THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 5(I) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DISTINGUISHED THE JUDGEME NTS RELIED UPON BY ASSESSEE AND FOLLOWED THE DECISION O F HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF JAI NARAIN V ITO 306 ITR 335 AND LATER DECISION OF 4 JURISDICTIONAL HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V DINESH VERMA 60 TAXMAN.COM 461 AN D DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS GROUND WAS ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I AM NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIE S BELOW. SECTION 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT READS AS UNDER : 54B. [(1)SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2), W HERE THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES] FROM THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET B EING LAND WHICH, IN THE TWO YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE ON WHICH T HE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, WAS BEING USED BY [ THE ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR HIS PARENT, OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY ] FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES [(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ORIGINAL ASSET)], AND THE ASSESS EE HAS, WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AFTER THAT DATE, PURCHASED ANY OTHER L AND FOR BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, THEN, INSTEAD OF THE CAPITAL GAIN BEING CHARGED TO INCOME TAX AS INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, IT SHALL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH TH E FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THAT IS TO SAY, I) IF THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN IS GREATER THA N THE COST OF THE LAND SO PURCHASED (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE N EW ASSET), THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN A ND THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET SHALL BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 AS THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR; AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING IN RESPECT OF THE NEW ASSET ANY CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM ITS TRA NSFER WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS OF ITS PURCHASE, THE COST SHA LL BE NIL; OR (II) IF THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN IS EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET, THE CAPITAL GAIN SHALL NOT B E CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45; AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING IN RES PECT OF THE NEW ASSET ANY CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM ITS TRANSFE R WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS OF ITS PURCHASE, THE COST SHA LL BE REDUCED, BY THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN. 5 [(2) THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN WHICH IS NOT UT ILISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASSET BEFORE THE DATE O F FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139, SHALL BE DEPOSITED BY HIM BEFORE FURNISHING SUCH RETURN [SUCH DEPOSIT BEING MADE IN ANY CASE NO T LATER THAN THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FUR NISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139] IN AN ACCOUNT IN ANY SUCH BANK OR INSTITUTION AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN, AND UTI LISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, ANY SCHEME WHICH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, FRAME IN THIS BEHALF AND SUCH RETURN SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY PROOF OF SUCH DEPOSIT; AND, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUBSECTION (1), THE AMOUNT, IF ANY, ALREADY UTILISE D BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASSET TOGETHER WITH THE AMO UNT SO DEPOSITED SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET : PROVIDED THAT IF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED UNDER THIS SU B SECTION IS NOT UTILIZED WHOLLY OR PARTLY FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE N EW ASSET WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (1), THEN I) THE AT NOT SO UTILIZED SHALL BE CHARGED UNDER SECTI ON 45 AS THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIG INAL ASSET EXPIRES; AND II) THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW SUCH AMO UNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW THE SCHEME AFORESAID. 6(I) HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF JAI NARAIN V ITO 306 ITR 335 HELD AS UNDER : IN INTERPRETING THE WORDS CONTAINED IN A STATUTE, THE COURT HAS NOT ONLY TO LOOK AT THE WORDS BUT ALSO TO LOOK AT T HE CONTEXT AND THE OBJECT OF SUCH WORDS RELATING TO SUCH MATTER AN D INTERPRET THE MEANING INTENDED TO BE CONVEYED BY THE USE OF THE W ORDS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE WORD 'ASSESSEE' OCCURRING IN S. 54B MUST BE INTERPRETED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO ACCORD WITH T HE CONTEXT AND SUBJECT OF ITS USAGE. A READING OF S. 54B NOWHERE S UGGESTS THAT 6 THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO ADVANCE THE BENEFIT OF THE SAID SECTION TO AN ASSESSEE WHO PURCHASED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND EVEN IN THE NAME OF A THIRD PERSON. WHEREVER THE LEGISLATURE IN TENDED IT TO BE SO, IT HAD SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED UNDER THE PROVISIO N. THE TERM 'ASSESSEE' IS QUALIFIED BY THE EXPRESSION 'PURCHASE D ANY OTHER LAND FOR BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES', WHI CH NECESSARILY MEANS THAT THE NEW ASSET WHICH IS PURCHASED HAS TO BE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF FOR SEEKING EXEMPTION UNDER S. 54B. THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BY THE ASSESSEE I N HIS SON OR GRANDSON'S NAME, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE HELD TO BE EN TITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER S. 54B.CIT VS. V, NATARAIAN (2006) 203 CTR (MAD) 37: (2007) 287ITR 271 (MAD) DISSENTED FROM... 6(II) HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN RECE NT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V DINESH VERMA 60 TAXMAN.COM 461 VIDE JUDGEMENT DATED 06.07.2015 CONSIDERED IDENTICAL ISSUES AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE QUESTION NO. 7 AS FOLLOWS : 7. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 54-B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY PURCHASED FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE?' 7. THE FINDINGS OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN PARAS 16 TO 20 READ AS UNDER : RE: QUESTIONS NO. 4 AND 7. THE ADDITIONAL QUESTION RAISED BY OUR ORDER DATED 02.03.2015. 16. QUESTION NO.4 MUST BE ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF TH E APPELLANT. AS WE MENTIONED EARLIER, THE RESPONDENT SOLD HIS AG RICULTURAL LAND FOR A SUM OF RS. 60,00,000/-. OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS HE INVESTED ONLY A SUM OF RS. 44,76,000/- TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF ANOTHER AGR ICULTURAL PLOT. THE BALANCE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 16,84,000/- IN RESPECT OF THAT PLOT WAS PAID BY THE RESPONDENT'S WIFE. IT IS NOT THE RESPONDENTS CASE THAT IT IS ACTUALLY HE WHO PAID THE AMOUNT OF RS. 16,84,700/- AND THAT HIS WIFE'S NAME WAS 7 ADDED BENAMI AND THAT THE TITLE THEREOF EVEN TO THA T EXTENT, VESTED IN HIMSELF. WE MUST, THEREFORE, PROCEED ON THE BASIS THAT OUT O F THE SUM OF RS.60,00,000/-, THE APPELLANT INVESTED ONLY RS.44,7 6,000/- IN THE SECOND PROPERTY. 17. THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT IT IS SETTLED NOW THAT A N ASSESSEE CAN. PURCHASE A NEW ASSET OR PART THEREOF IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE AND THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SAME ON CONSIDERATIONS, SUCH AS, STAMP DUTY REBATE, SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS, SECURITY FOR LADIES. THE TRIBUNAL NOTED THAT AS LONG AS THE FUND S ARE INVESTED THE RESPONDENT'S EXEMPTION CANNOT BE DENIED. 18. IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THIS VIEW,. SECTION 54B REQUIRES THE ASSESSEE TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FROM OUT OF THE S ALE CONSIDERATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET. IT DOES NOT ENTITLE THE ASSESSE E TO THE BENEFIT CONFERRED THEREIN IF THE SUBSEQUENT PROPERTY IS PURCHASED BY A PERSON OTHER THAN THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING A CLOSE RELATIVE EVEN SUCH AS HI S WIFE OR CHILDREN. IF THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED CONFERRING SUCH A BENEFIT, IT WOULD HAVE PROVIDED FOR THE SAME EXPRESSLY. INDEED, AN ASSESSEE CAN PURCHAS E AN ASSET OR A PART THEREOF IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE BUT HE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED THEN TO THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54B. MOREOVER, IT IS NOT THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE PURCHASED THE ASSET BENAMI IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE. WE HAVE PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS THAT HIS WIFE INVESTED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 16,84,700/- HERSELF. 19. A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN JAI NAMYAN V . 1TO [2008] 306 ITR 335 HELD: 10. IN INTERPRETING THE WORDS CONTAINED IN A STATUT E, THE COURT HAS NOT ONLY TO LOOK AT THE WORDS BUT ALSO TO LOOK AT THE C ONTEXT AND THE OBJECT OF SUCH WORDS RELATING TO SUCH MATTER AND INTERPRET TH E MEANING INTENDED TO BE CONVEYED BY THE USE OF THE WORDS UNDER THE CI RCUMSTANCES. THE WORD 'ASSESSEE' OCCURRING IN SECTION 54B MUST BE IN TERPRETED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO ACCORD WITH THE CONTEXT AND SUBJECT OF ITS USAGE. A READING OF SECTION 54B OF THE ACT NOWHERE SUGGESTS THAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO ADVANCE THE BENEFIT OF THE SAID SECTION TO AN ASSESSEE WHO PURCHASED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND EVEN IN THE NAME OF A THIRD PERSON. WHEREVER THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED IT TO BE SO, IT H AD SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED UNDER THE PROVISION. THE TERM 'ASSESSEE' I S QUALIFIED BY THE EXPRESSION 'PURCHASED ANY OTHER LAND FOR BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES', WHICH NECESSARILY MEANS THAT THE NEW ASS ET WHICH IS 8 PURCHASED HAS TO BE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HIM SELF FOR SEEKING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT. THE PURCHAS E OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS SON OR GRA NDSON'S NAME, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE HELD ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UND ER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT. 11. WE MAY MAKE A BRIEF REFERENCE TO THE DECISION R ELIED UPON BY COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED COUNSEL MAINLY RE LIED UPON THE DECISION IN V. NATARAJAN [2006] 287 ITR271 (MAD), WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. 12. THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN V. NATARAJAN'S CASE [ 20061 287 ITR 271 WAS DEALING WITH A CASE RELATING TO SECTION 54 OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WHO AFTER SELLING HIS RESIDENT IAL HOUSE HAD PURCHASED ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN HIS WIFE'S N AME, THE COURT HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANC ES WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. AFTER GIVING OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT T HE VIEW AS LAID DOWN IN V. NATARAJAN'S CASE [20061 287 ITR 271 (MAD ).' THUS, EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 16,84,700/- IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE, IT WOULD HAVE MADE NO DIFFERENCE. 20. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL TO THIS EXTENT IS, TH EREFORE, OVERRULED. IT IS DECLARED THAT RESPONDENT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO THE B ENEFIT OF SECTION 54B ON THE BASIS THAT HE INVESTED ONLY A SUM OF RS.44,76,0 00/- IN THE AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY PURCHASED BY HIM AFTER THE SALE OF THE AGR ICULTURAL PROPERTY EARLIER OWNED BY HIM. EVEN THE ADDITIONAL QUESTION NO. 7 RA ISED BY US IN OUR ORDER DATED 02.03.2015 IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPEL LANT/DEPARTMENT. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON DEC ISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GURNAM SINGH (SUPRA) DATED 01.04.2008 IN WHICH IT W AS HELD AS UNDER : ASSESSEE HAVING INVESTED SALE PROCEEDS OF HIS AGRI CULTURAL LAND IN PURCHASING ANOTHER AGRICULTURAL LAND IN JOINT NAMES OF HIMSELF AND HIS ONLY SON WHO WAS BACHELOR AND DEPENDENT UPON HIM, W AS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER S. 54B. 9 9. IN THIS CASE, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTI ON 54B OF THE ACT WAS ALLOWED ON FINDING THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS WERE UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AGRICULTU RE LAND IN ASSESSEE'S NAME AND IN THE NAME OF HIS SON. THEREFORE, THE FACTS ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM FACTS OF THIS CASE AND CANNOT BE GIVEN PRECEDENCE AGAINST THE LAT TER DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DINESH VERMA (SUPRA). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON DECISION OF MADRAS HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS V. NATARAJAN 287 ITR 277 IN W HICH THE ASSESSEE SOLD A PROPERTY AND PURCHASED ANOTHER PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE. THE ASSESSEE WAS , THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 O F THE ACT. HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF JAI NARAIN VS ITO (SUPRA) DISSENTED FRO M THIS JUDGEMENT, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE GIVEN PRECEDENCE AG AINST THE JUDGEMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE ALSO RELIED UPON DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT V KAMAL WAHAL 351 ITR 4 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD AS UNDER : FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 54F, TH E NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE NEED NOT BE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS OWN NA ME NOR IS IT NECESSARY THAT IT SHOULD BE PURCHASED EXCLUSIVELY IN HIS NAME . A PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE PREFERRED AS AGAINST A LITERA L CONSTRUCTION. 10. THIS JUDGEMENT CANNOT BE GIVEN PRECEDENCE AGA INST THE JUDGEMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT REFERRED TO 10 ABOVE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF BANT SINGH VS ITO 52 TAXMAN.COM 364 IN WHICH SON OF THE ASSESSEE WAS JOINT OWNER OF THE LAND WHICH WAS SOLD AND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF THE OLD AGE. THE TRIBUNAL RELIED UPON DECISION IN THE CASE OF GURNAM SINGH (SUPRA) THEREFORE, THESE DECISIONS COULD NOT BE GIVEN PREFERENCE AGAINST JUDGEMENTS OF THE HIGH COU RT. IN THE CASE OF CIT V KAMAL WAHAL (SUPRA), HON'BLE D ELHI HIGH COURT RELIED UPON DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RAVINDER KUMAR ARORA 342 ITR 38, THEREFORE, LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN OBSERVING THAT IN THE CASE OF RAVINDER KUMAR ARORA, THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F ON FINDING THAT DOCUMEN T CONVEYING THE PROPERTY CONTAINED THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SPOUSE. 11. I MAY NOTE HERE THAT HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DINESH VERMA (SUPRA) WHICH IS LATER DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT FRAMED THE SPECIFIC IDENTICAL ISSUE WHICH IS ALSO INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN PARA 18, DENIED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54B OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT BECAUSE THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED I N THE NAME OF WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT REFERRED TO ITS EARLIER DECISION IN THE CASE OF JAI NARAIN V ITO (SUPRA) AND ANSWERED QUEST ION NO. 7 IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO IN INFIRMITY IN THE 11 ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN FOLLOWING THE DECISION S OF JURISDICTIONAL HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAI NARAIN V ITO (SUPRA) AND CIT V DINE SH VERMA (SUPRA). IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE DECISIO NS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ARE BINDING ON THE TRIBUN AL. 12. I, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF HON'BL E PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF JAI NAR AIN AND DINESH VERMA (SUPRA), HOLD THAT PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE'S WIFE WOU LD NOT ALLOW EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS, THUS, NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 7 TH JULY,2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH