Sh. Jhanda Singh, Yamunanagar V. ITO, Yamunanagar

ITA 512/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6529 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 25-09-2018
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDRA KANTA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Reasonable cause; Fair market value; Valuation report; Condonation of delay; Revised return; Set aside
• Section: 54B; 54F; 2(14); 201; 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO.512/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SH. JHANDA SINGH VS. THE ITO S/O SH. ANUP SINGH, WARD-3 VILL- RATAULI, TEH- JAGADHRI YAMUNANAGAR YAMUNANAGAR PAN NO. AAACH3632C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. ASHOK GOYAL, CA REVENUE BY : SMT. CHANDRAKANTA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 25/02/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/02/2019 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 13/10/2018 OF LD. CIT(A), PANCHKULA. 2. THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DELAYED BY 68 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY STATING THEREIN AS UNDER: ON 12/11/2016 I RECEIVED THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) PANCHKULA IN MY CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. BEING AGGRIEVED B Y THE SAID ORDER I REQUESTED MY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS MESSRS AMAR JEET AND PANKA J ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, TO PREFER AN APPEAL TO THE HON'BLE APP ELLATE TRIBUNAL. AFTER RECEIVING THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS WELL IN TIME THEY UNDERTOOK TO DO THE NEEDFUL BUT DUE TO THE RUSH OF WORK OF FILING RETURNS AND D UE TO DEMONETAISATION THE SAID APPEAL WAS DELAYED . MY AFFIDAVIT DETAILING THE AFORESAID FACTS AND THES E MAY KINDLY BE PLACED BEFORE THE HON'BLE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR CONDONATION OF T HE SHORT DELAY IN SUBMISSION OF THE APPEAL. IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTED BY THE NOTARY DT. 14/03/2017 STATING THEREIN AS UNDER: I, JHANDA SINGH S/O ANUP SINGH, PAN - CCKPS3117G, R ESIDENT OF VILL - RATAULI, YAMUNA NAGAR HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND DECLARE AS UNDER : 1. THAT I PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE COMMISSIONER ( APPEALS) PANCHKULA AGAINST THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 3 1/03/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 3. THAT I RECEIVED THE ORDER OF THE SAID COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) PANCHKULA ON 12/11/2016. 4. THAT BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER 1 REQUESTED MY CA MESSRS. AMAR JEET AND PANKAJ ASSOCIATES CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS TO PREF ER AN APPEAL TO THE HON'BLE 2 APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND SUBMITTED THE REQUIRED DOCUM ENTS WELL IN TIME TO THEM AND THEY UNDERTOOK TO DO THE NEEDFUL . BUT DUE TO T HE RUSH OF WORK OF FILING INCOME TAX RETURNS AND DEMONETISATION RETURNS THE S AID APPEAL WAS DELAYED. 7. THAT SOON THEREAFTER I GOT IN TOUCH WITH MY AUDI TORS AND HAD THE APPEAL FILED ON 14/03/2017 WHICH WAS DELAYED. ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AFFIDAVIT OF THE CA SH. AMARJEE T SINGH STATING THEREIN AS UNDER: I, AMARJEET SINGH S/O SH. PREM SINGH VOHRA R/O 51 3-R, MODEL TOWN, YAMUNA NAGAR DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY STATE AND AFFIRM AS UNDER: 1. THAT I AM PRACTICING CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AT YAMUNA NAGAR, HAVING OFFICE AT 22-F, DAV MARKET OPP. MADHU HOTEL, YAMUNA NAGAR. 2. THAT I HAD BRIEF OF THE CASE OF SH. JHANDA SINGH AN D SH. DHARAM SINGH S/O SH. ANOOP SINGH, VILLAGE RATAULI, DISTT. YAMUNA NAG AR. 3. THAT I HAD ATTENDED THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND CIT(A) IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE AND THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT( A) WAS RECEIVED ON 12.11.2016 AND HANDED OVER TO ME FOR SUBSEQUENT APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH. H OWEVER, DURING THAT PERIOD DUE TO THE DEMONETIZATION, THERE WERE LOT OF QUERIE S AND RUSH AT MY OFFICE AND, AS SUCH, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WAS GOT MISPLACED SOME WHERE IN MY OFFICE AND IT WAS TRACED IN THE 2 ND WEEK OF MARCH 2017 AND, THEN, IMMEDIATELY I TOOK T HE NECESSARY STEP FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HON BLE BENCH THROUGH SH. SUDHIR SEHGAL. 4. THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS ON MY PART AND WHICH WAS DUE TO THE ABOVE SAID REASON AND THE SAME IS NOT ATTRIBUTA BLE TO THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS ILLITERATE. 5. THAT THE SAID DEFAULT IS HIGHLY REGRETTED AND IS BO NAFIDE MISTAKE ON MY PART. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTS OF THE AFORESAID APPLICATION AND THE A FFIDAVIT AND REQUESTED TO CONDONE THE DELAY. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS AN ILLITERATE, OLD PERSON OF ABOUT 85 YRS AND WAS NOT KNOWING ANY LEGAL FORMA LITY TO BE COMPLETED. 4. THE LD. SR. DR OPPOSED THE CONDONATION APPLICATI ON FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE IN FILING APPEAL BELAT ED, THEREFORE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL IS ADM ITTED. 6. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE HONBL'E CIT APPEALS, PANCHKUL A IS WRONG, ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE HONBL'E CIT APPEALS , PANCHKULA IS WRONG I N MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 25,51,176/-U/S 143(3)/147 THE INCOM E TAX ACT. 1961 4. THE APPELLANT RESERVES A RIGHT TO ADD . AMEND OR AL TER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 5. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY VERY KINDLY BE ALLOWED IN TOTAL. 3 FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS IT IS GATHERED THAT THE GRIE VANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS. 25,51, 176/-. 7. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESEE ALONG WITH S/ SH DHARAM SINGH AND KULDIP SINGH SOLD LAND MEASURING 28 KANAL 2 MARLA TO M/S J YOTIMA BUILDWELL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,18,75,763/- ON 18/07/2006. AND THE LAND SOLD WAS COVERED WITH IN THE AMBIT OF CAPITAL ASSET AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAF TER REFERRED TO AS ACT) AS THE DISTANCE OF LAND SOLD IN VILL- RATAULI WAS WITH IN 8 KM. OF MUNICIPAL LIMIT OF JAGADHRI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE CAPI TAL GAIN ON THE SALE PROCEEDS AT RS. 1,15,15,260/- AND 1/3 RD SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 38,38,420/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE CASE BY INITIATI NG THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNDER: 1. REGARDING THE INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT WORTH RS.10,24,071/- CLAIMED IN OUR RETURN DATED 01/05/2014 WE SUBMIT THAT SAID EXPENSES WAS ABOUT THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON FILLING OF LAND SOLD DURING TH E VARIOUS YEARS. DUE TO UNAVAILABILITY OF SUPPORTING PROOFS (I.E. DEATH OF THE LAND OWNERS FROM WHOM MUD WAS PURCHASED) WE HAVE SUBMITTED THE REVISED RETURN DATED 11/03/2015. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE ASSESS OUR CASE ON THE BASIS OF SAID REVISED RETURN. WE HAVE NOT CLAIMED ANY AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF INDEXED COST O F ACQUISITION IN THE SAID REVISED RETURN. 2. I HAVE CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF RS.23,46,533/- ON AC COUNT OF PURCHASE OF LAND U/S 54B. THE DETAILS OF THE SAME IS ALREADY SU BMITTED VIDE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN SUBMITTED ALONGWITH OUR WRITTEN REPLY SUBMITTED ON LAST HEARING. THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE TITLE DEEDS OF THE SAID LAND ARE ALREADY SUBMITTED TO YOU. THE SAME AMOUNT IS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT U/S 54B IN OUR ORI GINAL RETURN AS WELL AS IN OUR REVISED RETURN. 3. REGARDING THE CLAIM OF RS.4,70,633/- IN RESPECT OF LAND PURCHASED ON 18/02/2006 WE SUBMIT THAT THE SAID LAND WAS PURCHAS ED FROM THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF OUR AGRICULTURE LAND SOLD ON 18.07.2006. WE HAVE RECEIVED ADVANCE MONEY ON 04/01/2006 AS ALREADY MENTIONED IN TITLE DEED OF THE AGRICULTURE LAND SOLD BY US. WE HAVE UTILIZED THE S AID CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND. HENCE AS PER THE INTE NTION OF THE LAW THAT NEW AGRICULTURE LAND MUST BE PURCHASED OUT OF THE PROCE EDS OF THE SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 54B. WE HAVE SOLD OUR L AND WHEN THE AGREEMENT WAS MADE WITH THE SELLER I.E. ON 04/01/2006 BUT SAI D SALE AGREEMENT WAS REGISTERED ON 18/07/2006. HENCE THE CONDITION FOR C LAIMING THE EXEMPTION U/S 54B IS COMPLIED. THEREFORE THE EXEMPTION U/S 54B IN RES PECT OF AGRICULTURE LAND PURCHASED ON 18/02/2006 WAS CLAIMED BY US. 4. REGARDING BASIS OF TAKING FMV OF THE AGRICULTURE LAND SOLD WE HAVE REFERRED THE VALUATION REPORT OF INCOME TAX APPROVE D VALUER. THE SAID VALUER IS TECHNICALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY COMPETENT TO DECIDE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID AGRICULTURE LAND. HE HAS APPLIED THE REASONABL E MEANS AND RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO MAKE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. IF THERE I S ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AVAILABLE REGARDING THE VALUE THEN THERE WAS NO NEE D TO APPROACH THE APPROVED VALUER. THE NEED OF APPROVED VALUER IS ONL Y IN THE CASE OF DISPUTE IN VALUE. HENCE THE APPROVED VALUER IS COMPETENT TO DE CIDE THE FMV OF THE SAID LAND AND THE REPORT OF THE SAME IS RELIED UPON. 4 5. REGARDING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR THE CONSTRUCT ION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WE SUBMIT THAT THE ILLITERATE AGRICULTURISTS WERE NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THEY WERE NOT AWARE THAT THE BILLS AND INVOICES MAY BE REQUIRED IN FUTURE. THEY WERE LIVING IN KUCCHA HOUSES AND AFTER SALE OF THEIR AGRICULTURE LAND THEY HAVE CONSTRUCTED NEW LANTERED HOUSES AFTER DEMOLITI ON OF THE OLD HOUSES. THE COPIES OF INVOICES CAN BE GATHERED FROM THE SUPPLIE RS OF MATERIAL BUT IT NEED SOME TIME. YOUR GOODSELF IS REQUESTED TO GRANT FORT NIGHT'S TIME TO SUBMIT THE COPIES OF INVOICES. HOWEVER THE CERTIFICATE FROM AP PROVED VALUER REGARDING ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND ESTIMATED YEAR O F CONSTRUCTION IS ALREADY PLACED ON RECORD.' THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THE REVISED RETURN ON 11/03 /2015 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,07,587/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 2,50,000/- CLAIMING THEREIN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS EXEMPT. THE COMPU TATION OF INCOME WAS AS UNDER: FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RS. 42,47,381/- COST OF ACQUISITION AFTER INDEXATION RS. 5,54,19 3/- BALANCE RS. 36,93,188/- DEDUCTION U/S 54/54B/54D/54EC/54F RS. 35,85,601/ - NET BALANCE RS. 1,07,587/- 8. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,77,043/- BY OBSERVING IN PARA 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 30/ 03/2015 AS UNDER: WHILE RECORDING REASONS THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS COMPUTED BY TAKING 1/3 RD SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVI NG 201 MARLA SHARE IN THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHERS SH. KULD IP SINGH AND SH. DHARAM SINGH WHICH WAS SOLD FOR RS.42,47,381/-. ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148, 'DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 147 FOR A PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR, IF ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ALS O ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THAT PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR AND IT COMES TO THE NOTI CE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE CAN ASSESS OR REASSESS THAT INCOME ALSO. THE ASSESS EE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54B ON THE AMOUNT INVESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF AGRIC ULTURE LAND IN THE NAME OF HIS SONS. IN THE CASE OF JAI NARAYAN VS ITO (2008) 306 ITR 335 (P&H) IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54B WHERE THE ASSESSEE SOLD AN AGRICU LTURE LAND AND PURCHASED ANOTHER AGRICULTURE LAND IN THE NAME OF SONS OR GRA ND SONS. THEREFORE, EXEMPTION U/S 54B IS NOT ALLOWED ON THE AGRICULTURE LAND PURC HASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NAME OF HIS SONS. SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND MEASURING 28 KANAL 2 MARLA RS. 1,18,75,763/- 28 KANAL 2 MARLA (562) MARLA INDEXED COST PRICE OF THE LAND MEASURING 28 KANAL 2 MARLA AS ON 01.04.1981 RS. 3,60,503/ - LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN RS. 1,15,15,260/- ASSESSEES SHARE IN THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (201 MARLA) RS. 41,18,447/- LESS: EXEMPTION U/S 54 F RS. 11,41,404/- TAXABLE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN RS. 29,77,043/- 9. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT HIS SHARE IN THE SALE OF INHERITED A GRICULTURAL LAND HELD JOINTLY WITH HIS TWO BROTHERS WAS 35.76%. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED COST OF ACQUISITION OF HIS SHARE ON THE BASIS OF FA IR MARKET VALUE (FMV) REPORTED 5 BY THE INDEPENDENT VALUER M/S AGGARWAL ASSOCIATES DULY APPROVED BY INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT AC CEPTED THE SAID FMV AND ADOPTED THE REGISTERED VALUE OF LAND SITUATED FAR A WAY FROM CITY AS COMPARED TO ASSESSEES LAND. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 23,46,533/- AS 1/3 RD SHARE IN INVESTMENT IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND ON TH E GROUND THAT THE SAID INVESTMENT WAS IN THE NAME OF SON OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND JOINTLY WITH HIS BROTHER AND FURTHER PURCHASED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND JOINTLY WIT H HIS BROTHER HOWEVER HE HAD GIVEN HIS SONS NAME AS HE IS OLD AND NOT ABLE TO D O THE LEGAL FORMALITIES AND HE IS DEPENDENT ON HIS SON WHO IS TAKING CARE OF THE A GRICULTURAL ACTIVITY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED EX EMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F FOR INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE FOR RS. 14, 31,440/-. 10. LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE FMV OF THE LAND AS ON 01/04/1981 CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BASED ON THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DT. 27/06/1981 OF LAND SOLD IN A NEARBY VILLAGE JARODA WHERE AS THE FMV ADOPTED BY THE ASSE SSEE WAS ON THE BASIS OF VALUER REPORT BASED ON GENERAL ENQUIRY ABOUT MARKET RATE PREVAILING IN VILLAGE RATAULI. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R APPLIED THE RATE ON THE BASIS OF SALE DEED OF ANOTHER VILLAGE WHICH WAS FARTHER F ROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT OF JAGADHRI. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE FMV OF LAND ADOPTED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER. 11. AS REGARDS TO THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECT ION 54B ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE NAME OF ASSESS EES SON, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE PURCHASE DEED DID NOT REFLECT THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54B/54F WAS AVAILABLE T O THE ASSESSEE ONLY, THEREFORE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54B ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR INVESTM ENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEES SONS. AS REGARDS TO THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SE CTION 54F FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE AMOUNTING TO RS. 14,25,000/-, THE LD. CIT( A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE OR PURCHASE OF THE MATERIAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SAID HOUSE AND THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED TO VALUATION FOR COS T OF CONSTRUCTION TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER WHO PROVIDED A DETAI LED REPORT AND VALUED THE 6 COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS. 11,41,404/-, HE THEREFO RE HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT FOR RS. 11,41,404/-. 12. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 13. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSE WAS A PROPERTY OF HUF AND THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS ALSO PURCHASED FOR THE HUF IN THE NAME OF SON OF THE ASSESSEE WHO WERE THE COPARCENERS OF THE HUF, THEREFORE, THE LAND PURCHASED FOR HUF FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL LAND BELONGING TO THE HUF WAS EXEMPTED UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT AND THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COV ERED VIDE ORDER DT. 07/09/2018 OF CHANDIGARH D.B. BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE O F SHRI DALBIR SINGH, VILL- CHHAJUMAJRA, KHARAR VS. ITO, WARD 6(3), MOHALI IN I TA NO. 313/CHD/2018 FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14, (COPY OF THE SAID ORDER WAS FURNISHED WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD). 14. IN HER RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. SR. DR SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 15. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT ICED THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN ALREADY DECIDED BY ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN CA SE OF DALBIR SINGH(SUPRA) WHEREIN THE RELEVANT FINDINGS HAS BEEN GIVEN IN PAR A 5 TO 8 WHICH READ AS UNDER: 5. BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A RURAL AGRICULTURIST AND RESIDES IN JOINT FAMILY WIT H HIS TWO SONS AND GRANDSONS. THAT ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE FAMILY HAVE BEEN C ULTIVATING AGRICULTURAL LAND JOINTLY AND HAVING A COMMON KITCHEN. THAT THE AGRIC ULTURAL LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ANCESTRAL LAND. THAT SINCE THE AGE OF THE ASSESEE WAS PROGRESSING, AS HE WAS ALREADY OF 61 YEARS AND HE WAS NOT KEEPIN G GOOD HEALTH, HE THOUGHT IT PROPER TO PURCHASE THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OUT OF SAL E PROCEEDS IN THE NAME OF HIS TWO SONS. THAT THE MONEY INVESTED IN THE NEW CAPITA L ASSET I.E AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND S OLD. HE THEREFORE, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE NOT JUSTI FIED IN DENIAL OF DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT. 6. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS RELIED ON THE FI NDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESEE BEING AN OLD AGED PERSON AND WAS NOT KEEPING WELL THOUGHT IT PRU DENT TO BUY THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE NAME OF HIS SONS TO AVOID FUTURE DISPUT ES RELATING TO THE INHERITANCE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER HIS DEATH. THE S ALE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WERE DULY INVESTED IN THE PURCHAS E OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ITSELF. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION ON THE PAR T OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN DENYING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION THE ASSESSEE U/S 54B OF THE ACT. 8. IN VIEW OF THIS ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS H EREBY SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 54B OF THE ACT 7 IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PURCHASE O F THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE NAME OF HIS SONS. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE ASSESSEE IS AN ILLITER ATE AND OLD RETIRED PERSON, THE SALE PROCEEDS FROM THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BELONGING TO THE FAMILY, WERE INVESTED IN PURCHASE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE NAME OF THE SONS WHO WERE COPARCENERS IN THE HUF OF THE ASSESSEE. SO RESPECTF ULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO ORDER DT. 07/09/2018 IN THE CASE OF SH. DALBIR SINGH VS. ITO (SUPRA), THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT . 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/02/2019.) SD/- (N.K. SAINI) VICE PRESIDENT PLACE: CHANDIGARH DATED : 25/02/2019 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR