SMT. RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

ITA 557/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0550 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J C KULHARI JCIT DHK
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Competent authority
• Section: 143(3); 54B; 2(14); 54; 12

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 557/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SMT. RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL, 2/230, VIDHYADHAR NAGAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ADKPA 5661 Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI J.C. KULHARI (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 29/08/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18/09/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/03/2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-2, JAIPUR FOR THE A.Y. 201 3-14. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IS NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF RS. 2,47,60,900/- BY HOLDING THAT THE PURCHASE OF AGRIC ULTURE LAND ON 29/11/2012 BY THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE THE DATE OF EX ECUTION OF SALE DEED DATED 28/01/2013 RECTIFIED BY CORRECTION DEED DATED 15/2/2013 BY IGNORING THAT THE SALE DEED DATED 28/01/2013-15/ 02/2013 IS IN CONTINUATION OF AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 22/11/2012 AND REFERENCE OF THIS AGREEMENT IS MADE IN THE CORRECTION DEED DATED 15/02/2013. ITA 557/JP/2018_ RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO 2 1.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN MAKING VARIOUS INCORRECT OBSERVATIONS AND NOT DRAWING CORRECT INFERENCES FRO M THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE BEFORE HER. 2. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES TO AMEND, ALTER AND MODIFY A NY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE APPROPRIATE COST BE AWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS INDIVIDUAL AND FILED HER RETURN O F INCOME ON 16/01/2014 THROUGH E-FILING DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,79,240/- AFTER CALMING DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 (IN SHORT THE ACT). DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE S OLD AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILLAGE TATIAWAS, TEHSIL-AJMER. THE ASSESSEE CLAIME D THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN QUESTION WAS SOLD VIDE AGREEMENT TO SELL DAT ED 22/11/2012 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 3,14,77,440/- AND SUBSEQUENTLY A SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 28/01/2013. THEREAFTER A CORRECTION DEED WAS ALSO EXECUTED ON 15/2/2013. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED NEW AGRICULTURA L LANDS VIDE SALE DEED DATED 29/11/2012 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2, 47,60,900/-, SALE DEED DATED 29/3/2013 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 9,30,550 /-, SALE DEED DATED 13/3/2013 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 13,89,450/- AN D SALE DEED DATED 10/04/2013 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 15,80,000/-. THUS, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED FOUR PIECES OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS VIDE SE PARATE SALE DEEDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND PURCHASED VIDE SALE DEED DATED 29 /11/2012 FOR A ITA 557/JP/2018_ RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO 3 CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2,47,60,900/-. THE CLAIM OF DED UCTION IN RESPECT OF OTHER THREE AGRICULTURAL LANDS PURCHASED BY THE ASS ESSEE WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54B ON THE GROUND THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS SOLD AFTER PURCHASE OF NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THEREFORE, THE AGRICULTURA L LAND PURCHASED PRIOR TO THE SALE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF T HE ACT. 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND REITERATED ITS CONTENTION THAT TH E SALE TRANSACTION OF THE ORIGINAL AGRICULTURAL LAND AFFECTED VIDE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 22/11/2012. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO REFERRED THE SALE CONSIDERATIO N RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO THE SALE DEED DATED 28/01/2013 AN D THUS CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE CONSIDERATION AS PER THE AGRE EMENT TO SELL. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE CORRECTION DEED DATED 15/02/2013 IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM THAT THE SAID CORRECTION DEED CLEARLY MENTIONED THE PRIOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND CONSIDERATION RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF EXISTING LAND TOOK PLACE ONLY ON 28/01/2013 WHEN THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED AND REGIST ERED WITH THE SUB- REGISTRAR. ITA 557/JP/2018_ RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO 4 4. BEFORE US, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITT ED THAT THE TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TOOK PLACE WHEN THE ASSESSEE EN TERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 22/11/2012 AND HANDED OVER THE POSSESSION OF LAND AGAINST THE RECEIPT OF CONSIDERATION IN THE SH APE OF POST DATED CHEQUES WHICH WERE ENCASHED BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN PRI OR TO THE EXECUTION OF SALE DEED DATED 28/01/2013. THUS, THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) (V)&(VI)OF THE ACT, A TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY INCLUDES ANY TRANSACTION INVOLVING THE ALL OWING OF POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY TO BE TAKEN OR RETAINED IN PART PERFOR MANCE OF CONTRACT IN THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT OR ANY TRANSACTION WHICH HAS EFFECT OF TRANSFERRING OR ENAB LING THE ENJOYMENT OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS HANDED OVER THE POSSESSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO THE PURCHASER AT THE TIME OF E NTERING INTO THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 22/11/2012. THE SALE CONSID ERATION WAS AGREED UPON BETWEEN THE PARTIES AT THE TIME OF AGREEMENT WHI CH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF POST DATED CHEQUES. ACCORDING LY, THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 28/1/2013 BUT CERTAIN FACTUAL MISTAKES OCCURRED IN THE SALE DEED, THEREFORE, A CORRECTION DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 1 5/2/2013 IN WHICH THE FACT OF HANDING OVER THE POSSESSION OF LAND AS PER THE AGREEMENT DATED 22/11/2012 IS ALSO MENTIONED. THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTE D THAT IN THE FIRST SALE DEED DATED 28/01/2013 AND CORRECTION DEED DATED 15/ 02/2013, THE CHEQUE ITA 557/JP/2018_ RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO 5 DETAILS ARE MENTIONED, WHICH ARE SAME AS MENTIONED I N THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 22/11/2012. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT O F SMT. AMITA KEDIA, THE PURCHASER OF THE LAND, WHO HAS STATED THAT SHE RECEI VED THE POSSESSION OF LAND ON THE DATE OF SALE AGREEMENT DATED 22/01/2012 . THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE WHEN THE PURCHASER OF THE LAND H AS ACCEPTED THE FACT OF RECEIVING THE POSSESSION AND PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATI ON AS ON THE DATE OF SALE AGREEMENT THEN MERELY BECAUSE THE SALE DEED WA S EXECUTED SUBSEQUENTLY WOULD NOT CHANGE THE ACTUAL TRANSACTION OF TRANSFER OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE LD AR HAS RELIED UPON THE DEC ISION DATED 25/01/2018 OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO IN ITA NO. 680 & 681/JP/2017 AND S UBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE AGREEMENT TO SELL AND SUBSEQUENT SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF SALE OF LAND, HELD THAT THE TRANSACTI ON OF TRANSFER WAS COMPLETED WHEN THE PARTIES HAVE EXECUTED THE AGREEME NT TO SELL AND IN PERFORMANCE OF THE SAID AGREEMENT, SALE DEED WAS EXE CUTED SUBSEQUENTLY, THEREFORE, WHEN THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT TO SELL AND A SSESSEE RECEIVED THE CONSIDERATION AND HANDED OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND THEN THE TRANSACTION OF TRANSFER IN RELATION TO THE LAND WAS COMPLETED ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT TO SELL AND THE SUBSEQUENT S ALE DEED IS ONLY IN PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT TO SELL AND NOT CREATED A NY FRESH RIGHT IN FAVOUR ITA 557/JP/2018_ RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO 6 OF THE PURCHASER. HE HAS REFERRED TO THE DETAILS OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS PAID IN RESPECT OF THE SALE OF EXISTING AGRICULTURAL LAND AND PURCHASE OF THE NEW AGRICULTUR AL LAND AND SUBMITTED THAT THE MAJOR PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID BY TH E ASSESSEE ONLY AFTER RECEIVING THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE EXISTING AG RICULTURAL LAND AND HENCE THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 54B OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. HE HAS ALSO REITERATED ITS CONTENTION RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) AND SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE PURCHASER OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND HAS ADMI TTED THE FACT OF RECEIVING THE POSSESSION IN THE STATEMENT MADE IN T HE AFFIDAVIT THEN WITHOUT CONFRONTING AND REJECTING THE AFFIDAVIT FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME IS A SUFFICIENT PROOF TO ESTABLISH THE FACT. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ALLEGED AGR EEMENT TO SALE IS NEITHER REGISTERED NOR NOTARIZED. NO PAYMENT WAS REC EIVED AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF THE SAID AGREEMENT. RATHER NO PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED UP TO DATE OF PURCHASE OF NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND VIDE SALE DEED DATED 29/11/2012, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INVESTED THE CAPITA L GAIN ARISE FROM THE SALE OF EXISTING AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR PURCHASE OF NEW AG RICULTURAL LAND. IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF PURCHASING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND PRIO R TO THE DATE OF SALE OF THE EXISTING AGRICULTURAL LAND. HENCE, AS PER THE STATU TORY PROVISION, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF TH E ACT ONLY WHEN ITA 557/JP/2018_ RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO 7 INVESTMENT IS MADE AFTER TRANSFER OF THE EXISTING C APITAL ASSET. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF D EDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 39.00 LACS AS THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AFTER THE SALE OF THE EXISTING LA ND. WHEN NO ACTUAL CONSIDERATION HAS PASSED ON TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT TO SELL THEN THE TRANSFER OF THE EXISTING LAND WAS NOT COMPLETED ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT WHEN THE SUBSEQUENT SALE DEED DATED 28/01 /2013 CLEARLY STATES THAT POSSESSION HAS BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE BUYER O N THE DATE OF REGISTRATION. THE LD DR HAS THUS, SUBMITTED THAT THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT IS TO PURC HASE THE LAND AFTER THE SALE OF THE EXISTING LAND. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED THE DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2,47,60,900/- ON 29/1 1/2012 WHICH IS PRIOR TO THE SALE OF EXISTING AGRICULTURAL LAND VIDE SALE DE ED DATED 28/01/2013. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE PURCHASE OF NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND IS PRIOR TO THE SALE OF EXISTING AGRICULTURAL LAND AND NOT SUBSEQUENT TO THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED U PON THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 22/11/2012 AND SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE AS SESSEE RECEIVED THE CONSIDERATION THROUGH POST DATED CHEQUES ON THE DAT E OF AGREEMENT TO SELL ITA 557/JP/2018_ RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO 8 AND ALSO HANDED OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND TO THE PURCHASER THEN THE TRANSACTION OF TRANSFER OF EXISTING AGRICULTURAL LA ND COMPLETED ON 22/11/2012 WHICH IS PRIOR TO THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASSET VIDE SALE DEED DATED 29/11/2012. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DOUBTED THE EXISTENCE OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 22/11/ 2012, HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE DETAILS OF CONSIDERATION AS MENTIONED IN T HE AGREEMENT TO SELL AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT SALE DEED DATED 28/01/2013 ARE SA ME. FOR SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, WE REPRODUCE THE DETAILS OF CHEQUES TH ROUGH WHICH THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS UNDER: SL. NO. CHEQUE NO. NAME OF THE BANK AMOUNT DATED 1. 358891 VIJAYA BANK, VIDYADHAR NAGAR BRANCH, JAIPUR 88,00,000/ - 04/01/2013 2. 308537 SYNDICATE BANK, SETH COLONY BRANCH, JAIPUR 9,00,000/ - 27/01/20 13 3. 349005 VIJAYA BANK, VIDYADHAR NAGAR BRANCH, JAIPUR 80,00,000/ - 25/02/2013 4. 349006 VIJAYA BANK, VIDYADHAR NAGAR BRANCH, JAIPUR 80,00,000/ - 25/02/2013 5. 349008 VIJAYA BANK, VIDYADHAR NAGAR BRANCH, JAIPUR 57,77,440/ - 28/01/2013 TOTAL 3,14,77,4 40/ - THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT SOME OF THESE CHEQUES WERE DAT ED PRIOR TO THE SALE DEED DATED 28/01/2013 AND SOME OF THE CHEQUES ARE P OST DATED I.E. 25/02/2013. THE ONLY ONE CHEQUE OF RS. 57,77,440/- I S DATED 28/01/2013. THESE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. THE CHEQUE DATED 01/4 /2013 WAS PRESENTED AND ENCASHED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON 07/01/2013, THEREFORE, IT IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE BANK STATEMEN T OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ITA 557/JP/2018_ RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO 9 THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE PART SALE CONSIDERATION T O THE EXTENT OF RS. 88.00 LACS ON 07/01/2013 WHEN THE SAID CHEQUE WAS ENCASHED AND CREDITED TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS FACT SHOWS TH AT PRIOR TO THE SALE DEED DATED 28/01/2013, THE ASSESSEE AND THE PURCHAS ER HAD AGREED FOR THE PURCHASE AND SALE CONSIDERATION AND THE CHEQUES WERE ALSO HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE PURCHASER MUCH PRIOR TO THE DAT E OF SALE DEED DATED 28/01/2013. ONCE THE PARTIES HAVE THE PRIOR AGREEME NT REGARDING THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE EXISTING AGRICULTURAL LAND THE N THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 22/11/2012 CANNOT BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT SELF SER VING DOCUMENT. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE CONSIDERATION THROUGH THE POST DATED CHEQUES ON THE DATE OF AGREE MENT AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS SIMULTANEOUSLY PURCHASING THE NEW AGRICU LTURAL LAND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PAID THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF THE NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND THROUGH POST DATED CHEQUES. WE NOTE THAT THE ENTIRE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE THRO UGH THE CHEQUES WHICH WERE ENCASHED AFTER THE SALE DEED DATED 29/11/2 012. WE FIND FROM THE BANK STATEMENT THAT THE FIRST PART OF THE PURCH ASE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID ON 12/12/2012, THE SECOND PART OF THE CONSIDER ATION WAS PAID ON 21/12/2012 AND THE THIRD PART OF THE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID ON 16/01/2013. THUS, THE ENCASHMENT OF THE CHEQUES OF SALE CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS PURCHASE CONSIDERATION CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE ITA 557/JP/2018_ RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO 10 SALE CONSIDERATION THROUGH POST DATED CHEQUES AND A LSO PAID THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION THROUGH POST DATED CHEQUES. THE PART PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WAS MADE AFTER RECEIPT OF THE PART PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 88.00 LACS ON 07/01/2013 WHEREA S THE PURCHASER CONSIDERATION WAS PAID ON 16/01/2013. ALL THESE TRAN SACTIONS WERE COMPLETED EVEN PRIOR TO THE SALE DEED DATED 28/01/2 013. HENCE THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PURCHASE CONSI DERATION AS WELL AS SALE CONSIDERATION WERE PAID AND RECEIVED RESPECTIVELY TH ROUGH POST DATED CHEQUES, ARE FOUND TO BE CORRECT FROM THE RECORD WH ICH CAN BE VERIFIED INDEPENDENTLY BEING THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. THOUGH IN THE FIRST SALE DEED DATED 28/01/2013 THE ENTIRE FACTS WERE NOT NARRATED, HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY ON 15/2/2013 A CORRECTION DEED WAS EXECUTED AND REGISTERED WHEREIN ALL THESE DETAILS AND FACTS WERE C LEARLY MENTIONED REGARDING THE HANDING OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE LA ND IN QUESTION AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT DATED 22/11/2012 . HENCE, SO FAR AS THE FACTS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE CONCERNED, THES E ARE ESTABLISHED FROM THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WERE NEITHER QUESTIONE D NOR FOUND TO BE BOGUS. THE DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE REGISTERED AS SALE DEE DS FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS ARE ALSO OTHERWISE NOT IN DISPUTE AND FURTHER THE DETAILS OF THE RECEIPT AND PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATION AS PER THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE. THUS, IN THESE FACTS AS ITA 557/JP/2018_ RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO 11 ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SALE CONSIDERA TION AS WELL AS PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID THROUGH POST DATED CHEQUES AR E RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING THE ISSUE OF ELIGIBILITY OF DED UCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT. 6.1 SECTION 54B OF THE ACT WAS BROUGHT INTO STATUTE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 1970 AS A CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT OF SECTION 2(14) AND SECTION 47 WHEREBY THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM TRANSFER OF AG RICULTURAL LAND SITUATED IN THE MUNICIPAL OR OTHER URBAN AREA WAS BROUGHT TO TAX EVEN WHERE SUCH LAND WAS HELD FOR BONAFIDE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. THE REFORE, WITH A VIEW TO RELIEVING THE BURDEN OF TAXATION ON THE CAPITAL GAI N IN SUCH CASES, A PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE U/S 54B FOR EXEMPTING FROM THE TAX, THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. THUS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54B ARE BENEFICIAL P ROVISION AND RELIEVING THE GENUINE ASSESSEE FROM THE TAX BURDEN ON TRANSFE R OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT SUCH AGRICULTURAL LAN D WAS BEING USED BY THE ASSESSEE OR PARENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AND T HE ASSESSEE HAS, WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF SALE, HAS AC QUIRED NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND. THUS THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN WHICH IS NOT EX CEEDING THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF NEW LAND SHALL NOT BE CHARGEABLE TO T AX. THE CONCESSION/BENEFIT GIVEN IN SECTION 54B WILL BE FORF EITED IF THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERS THE FRESH LAND ACQUIRED BY HIM WITHIN A PE RIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS PURCHASE. THUS THE OBJECTION AND SCH EME OF GRANTING THE ITA 557/JP/2018_ RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO 12 BENEFIT U/S 54B IS TO RELIEVE THE GENUINE ASSESSEE FROM THE BURDEN OF CAPITAL GAIN TAX ON TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND I F THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED NEW AGRICULTURAL ASSET BY INVESTING THE CA PITAL GAIN AND AS SUCH THE PURPOSE WAS TO SUBSTITUTE THE EXISTING AGRICULTU RAL LAND BY NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND. THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE ELIGIBILITY OF BENEFIT OF SECTION 54B OF THE ACT, THE PREDOMINANT AND SUBS TANTIAL CONDITION OF SUBSTITUTING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND HAS TO BE SATISF IED. THE DATE OF ACTUAL TRANSFER OF EXISTING LAND OR EVEN THE PURCHASE OF N EW AGRICULTURAL LAND MAY NOT BE ALWAYS RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 54 B OF THE ACT. FOR INSTANCE, IN CASE OF ACQUISITION OF LAND BY THE GOV ERNMENT, THE TRANSFER OF THE LAND TOOK PLACE WHEN THE GOVERNMENT TAKES OVER T HE POSSESSION BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED T HE COMPENSATION AND EVEN IN SOME CASES ENHANCED COMPENSATION IS RECEIVE D AFTER LAPSE OF SO MANY YEARS, THEREFORE, THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND THE ACTUAL RECEIPT OF COMPENSATION ARE NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS. UNTIL AND UNL ESS, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED COMPENSATION/CONSIDERATION, THE ACQUISITIO N OF NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND IS NOT POSSIBLE, HENCE THE RELEVANT DATE IS TH E RECEIPT OF COMPENSATION OR CONSIDERATION AND NOT THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF D OCUMENT AS HELD BY THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JANARDHAN DASS 299 ITR 210. ITA 557/JP/2018_ RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO 13 6.2 THE REQUIREMENT FOR AVAILING THE BENEFIT OF SEC TION 54B IS TO USE THE CAPITAL GAIN FOR PURCHASE OF NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND A ND IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT RECEIVE THE SALE CONSIDERATION THEN THE QUESTIO N OF PURCHASING NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND DOES NOT ARISE AND THE VERY OBJEC T OF SECTION 54B OF THE ACT WOULD BE DEFEATED. HENCE THE RECEIPT OF COMPENSA TION AND PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE OF NEW ASSET ARE THE RELE VANT DATES FOR DETERMINING THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 54B OF THE AC T ARE SATISFIED. IN THE CASE IN HAND, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE CO MPENSATION PRIOR TO THE PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION FOR ACQUI SITION OF NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND THEN THE TRANSACTION HAS TO BE LO OKED INTO IN THE OVERALL FACTS AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE ASS ESSEE SOLD EXISTING AGRICULTURAL LAND AND PURCHASED NEW AGRICULTURAL LAN D. IF THE INTENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS MANIFEST FROM THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE FRESH AGRICULTURAL LAND IN LIEU OF TH E EXISTING AGRICULTURAL LAND THEN THE CONDITIONS AS ENVISAGED IN SECTION 54B OF THE ACT ARE SATISFIED. WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION THROUGH POST DATED CHEQUES WHICH WERE E NCASHED IN PART PRIOR TO THE PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION THROUGH POST DATED CHEQUES. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, BOTH THE RECEIPTS OF S ALE CONSIDERATION AND PURCHASE CONSIDERATION ARE THROUGH POST DATED CHEQU ES AS EVIDENT FROM THE RECORD AND NONE OF THE CHEQUES WAS ENCASHED ON THE D ATE OF EXECUTION OF ITA 557/JP/2018_ RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO 14 THE SALE DEED BUT THE RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION IS AFTER THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 22/11/2012 AND MUCH PRIOR TO THE SALE DE ED DATED 28/01/2013 WHEREAS THE ENTIRE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID OU T FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY AFTER THE SALE DEED DA TED 29/11/2012. THESE FACTS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE RECEIPT AS WELL A S PAYMENT ARE THROUGH POST DATED CHEQUES AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THE EXISTENCE OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 22/11/2012 UNDER WHICH THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SUBSEQUENT DOCUMENTS CONSIST OF CORRECTION DEED AS WELL AS THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE PURCHASER HAS SUPPORTED THE FACT THAT THE CONSIDERA TION FOR SALE OF THE EXISTING LAND WAS RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF THE AGREEM ENT TO SELL DATED 22/11/2012 AND POSSESSION WAS ALSO HANDED OVER ON T HE SAID DATE OF AGREEMENT. HENCE WHEN THE AGREEMENT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ACTED UPON AND IN PERFORMANCE OF THE SAID AGREEMENT, THE PARTIES H AVE FINALLY EXECUTED THE SALE DEED THEN THE TRANSACTION WILL BE CONSIDERED AS TRANSFERRED AS ON THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT. AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS CONSID ERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO (SUPRA) IN PARA 6 AND 7 AS UNDER: 6. EVEN OTHERWISE THE TERM TRANSFER AS PER SECTIO N 2(47) R.W.S. 48 OF THE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS WIDER THAN THE TERM SALE AND IT I NCLUDES ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES IN THE PROPERTY EITHER IN PRAESENTI OR A CCRUING IN FUTURE AS VESTED IN VENDOR. ONCE THESE RIGHTS VESTED IN THE VENDOR W ERE SUBJECT MATTER OF ITA 557/JP/2018_ RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO 15 THE TRANSFER , THE VENDOR RETAINS NO RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY TO BE R E-CONVEYED IN THE SUBSEQUENT SALE DEED EXCEPT THE OBLIGATION T O GET THE PROPERTY CONVERTED FOR NON AGRICULTURAL USE AND EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED. THE INTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES ARE RELEVANT AND MUST BE ASCERTAINED FROM A DOCUMENT AS A WHOLE. WHERE THE DEED OF TRANSFER HAS BEEN EXECUTED THOUGH IN VIOLATION OF LAW PRESCRIBING FOR A PREVIO US SANCTION OR SUBSEQUENT VALIDATION BY A COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND THOUGH NOT REGISTERED WOULD STILL ATTRACT THE APPLICATION OF DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE. IN THE CASE IN HAND SINCE, THE AGRICULTURAL LAND COULD NOT BE SOLD IN VIEW OF SECTION 42 OF THE RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT, THEREFORE, THE PAR TIES ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 11.04.2007 AND THEREAFTER T HE LANDS WERE CONVERTED INTO NON AGRICULTURAL LAND AND MORE SPECI FIC FARM HOUSE LAND ON 03.02.2010 AND 05.02.2010 AND THEREAFTER THE SAL E DEED WAS EXECUTED BY THE VENDORS ON 13.04.2010. AS IT IS CLEAR FROM T HESE ACT AND EVENTS THAT IT IS CONTINUOUS PROCESS OF TRANSFER WHICH BEGINS W ITH THE AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 11.04.2007, CONVERSION OF THE LAND USE O N 03/05.02.2010 AND ULTIMATELY EXECUTION ON SALE DEED ON 13.04.2010. TH E SALE DEED DATED 13.04.2010 IS A PERFORMANCE OF OBLIGATION UNDER THE AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 11.04.2007, THEREFORE, THE CONVERSION OF THE LAND AFTER THE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT TO SALE IS A POST FACTO CONVERSION AND THE TRANSFER WOULD EFFECTS FROM THE DATE OF AGREEMENT TO SALE SPECIFYI NG ALL THE CONDITIONS AS STIPULATED U/S 2(47) (V) OF THE ACT R.W.S. 53A OF T HE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT. ONCE, THE SALE DEED IS EXECUTED IN PURSUANT TO AGRE EMENT TO SALE AND ALL THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED U/S 2(47) OF THE ACT ARE SATISFIED IT WOULD CONSTITUTE TRANSFER AND WOULD BE EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE OF AGREEMENT TO SALE ITSELF. 7 . THOUGH AS PER THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT TO THE REGISTRA TION ACT 1908 VIDE AMENDMENT ACT 2001 AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF ANY IMM OVABLE PROPERTY WITHOUT REGISTRATION SHALL HAVE NO EFFECT OF TRANSF ER HOWEVER , THE ITA 557/JP/2018_ RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO 16 AGREEMENT IN QUESTION HAS TO BE SEEN ALONG WITH THE SALE DEED EXECUTED SUBSEQUENTLY. IT IS NOT A CASE OF TRANSFER BASED ON LY ON UNREGISTERED DOCUMENTS BUT IN THIS CASE THE PARTIES TO THE AGREE MENT HAVE EXECUTED SALE DEED IN PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT. THEREFOR E, THE TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A COMBINE D ACT OF AGREEMENT TO SALE AND SALE DEED AS A SINGLE TRANSACTION OF TR ANSFER WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH TRANSACTION WAS INTENDED AND CONCEIVED BY THE PARTIES TO THE TRANSACTION. HENCE, AGREEMENT TO SAL E DATED 11/04/2007 CONVERSION OF LAND USE BY JDA ON 03.02.2010 AND 05. 02.2010 AND EXECUTION SALE DEED DATED 13.04.2010 ARE INTERLINKE D AND INSEPARABLE CHAIN OF EVENTS NECESSARY FOR TRANSACTION OF TRANSF ER. THE CONTENTS OF THE SALE DEED DATED 13.04.2010 CLEARLY SHOW THAT IT IS IN FURTHERANCE OF AGREEMENT DATED 11.04.2007. THE SALE DEED CLEARLY S TATES THAT MADE OF PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATION AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN I N THE AGREEMENT DATED 11.04.2007. THEREFORE, THE POSSESSION WAS HANDED OV ER AND CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SALE DEED. THE SA LE DEED IN FACT RATIFY THE TRANSACTION OF TRANSFER VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 11.04. 2007. THE PARTIES WERE VERY MUCH AWARE ABOUT THE NEED OF CONVERSION OF LAN D USE AND ACCORDINGLY APPLIED TO JDA FOR CONVERSION WHICH WAS GRANTED IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2010 AND THEREAFTER THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED. HEN CE, THE TRANSFER AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE TIME OF AGREEMENT DATED 11.04.2007. THE INTENTION OF THE PA RTIES CAN BE GATHERED FROM THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, SUBSEQUENT PERFORM ANCE BY THE PARTIES IN TERMS OF AGREEMENT GETTING THE LAND CONVERTED TO NON AGRICULTURAL USE AND EXECUTION ON SALE WHICH HAS REAFFIRMED THE STAT US OF THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT AND THE TRANSFER UNDER THE AGREEMENT INST EAD OF ALTERING THE SAME. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF SANJAY L AL VS. CIT 365 ITR 389 WHILE CONSIDERING THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE DA TE ON WHICH AGREEMENT FOR SALE WAS EXECUTED COULD BE CONSIDERED THE DATE ON WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS TRANSFER HAS HELD IN PARA 20 TO 25 AS UNDER:- ITA 557/JP/2018_ RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO 17 20. THE QUESTION TO BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT IS WHETHER THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WHICH HAD BEEN EXECUTED ON 27TH DECEMBER, 2002 CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A DATE ON WHICH THE PROPERTY I.E. THE RESIDENTIAL HOU SE HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED. IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES BY EXECUTING AN AGREEMENT T O SELL IN RESPECT OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, A RIGHT IN PERSONAM IS CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE TRANSFEREE/VENDEE. WHEN SUCH A RIGHT IS CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE, THE VENDOR IS RESTRAINED FROM SELLING THE SAID PROP ERTY TO SOMEONE ELSE BECAUSE THE VENDEE, IN WHOSE FAVOUR THE RIGHT IN PE RSONAM IS CREATED, HAS A LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO ENFORCE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT, IF THE VENDOR, FOR SOME REASON IS NOT EXECUTING THE SALE D EED. THUS, BY VIRTUE OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL SOME RIGHT IS GIVEN BY THE VE NDOR TO THE VENDEE. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ENTIRE PROPERTY CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN SOLD AT THE TIME WHEN AN AGREEMENT TO SELL IS ENTERED INTO. IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AFORESTATED QUESTION HAS TO BE ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE. HOWEVER, LOOKING AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE A CT, WHICH DEFINES THE WORD 'TRANSFER IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET, ONE CAN SAY THAT IF A RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY IS EXTINGUISHED BY EXECUTION OF AN AGREEME NT TO SELL, THE CAPITAL ASSET CAN BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED. RELEV ANT PORTION OF SECTION 2(47), DEFINING THE WORD 'TRANSFER' IS AS UNDER: 2 (47) 'TRANSFER', IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET, INCLUDES,- (I)** ** ** (II) THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHTS THEREIN; OR ' 21 NOW IN THE LIGHT OF DEFINITION OF 'TRANSFER' AS DE FINED UNDER SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, IT IS CLEAR THAT WHEN ANY RIGHT IN RESPECT OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET IS EXTINGUISHED AND THAT RIGHT IS TRANSFERRED TO SOMEO NE, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AF ORESTATED DEFINITION, LET US LOOK AT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WHERE AN AGRE EMENT TO SELL IN RESPECT OF A CAPITAL ASSET HAD BEEN EXECUTED ON 27TH DECEMB ER, 2002FOR TRANSFERRING THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE/ORIGINAL ASSET I N QUESTION AND A SUM OF RS. 15 LAKHS HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF EARNEST MO NEY. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SALE DEED COULD NOT BE EXECUTED BE CAUSE OF PENDENCY OF THE LITIGATION BETWEEN SHRI RANJEET LAL ON ONE HAND AND THE APPELLANTS ON THE OTHER AS SHRI RANJEET LAL HAD CHALLENGED THE VA LIDITY OF THE WILL UNDER WHICH THE PROPERTY HAD DEVOLVED UPON THE APPELLANTS . BY VIRTUE OF AN ORDER PASSED IN THE SUIT FILED BY SHRI RANJEET LAL, THE A PPELLANTS WERE RESTRAINED FROM DEALING WITH THE SAID RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND A LAW- ABIDING CITIZEN CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO VIOLATE THE DIRECTION OF A CO URT BY EXECUTING A SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF A THIRD PARTY WHILE BEING RESTRAI NED FROM DOING SO. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR A JUSTIFIABLE REASON, WHICH WAS NOT WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANTS, THEY COULD NOT EXECUTE THE SALE DEE D AND THE SALE DEED HAD BEEN REGISTERED ONLY ON 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2004, AFTER THE SUIT FILED BY SHRI RANJEET LAL, CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE WILL, HAD BEEN DISMISSED. IN THE ITA 557/JP/2018_ RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO 18 LIGHT OF THE AFORESTATED FACTS AND IN VIEW OF THE D EFINITION OF THE TERM 'TRANSFER', ONE CAN COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT SOME RIGHT IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL ASSET IN QUESTION HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED IN F AVOUR OF THE VENDEE AND THEREFORE, SOME RIGHT WHICH THE APPELLANTS HAD, IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL ASSET IN QUESTION, HAD BEEN EXTINGUISHED BECAUSE AF TER EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE APPELLANTS TO SELL THE PROPERTY TO SOMEONE ELSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. A RIGHT IN PER SONAM HAD BEEN CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE, IN WHOSE FAVOUR TH E AGREEMENT TO SELL HAD BEEN EXECUTED AND WHO HAD ALSO PAID RS. 15 LAKHS BY WAY OF EARNEST MONEY. NO DOUBT, SUCH CONTRACTUAL RIGHT CAN BE SURR ENDERED OR NEUTRALIZED BY THE PARTIES THROUGH SUBSEQUENT CONTRACT OR CONDU CT LEADING TO NO TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY TO THE PROPOSED VENDEE BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE AT HAND. 22. IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT THE TERM 'TRANSFER' H AS BEEN DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, EVEN IF LOOKED AT THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 54 OF THE ACT WHICH GIVES RELIEF TO A PERSON WHO HAS TRANSFER RED HIS ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND IS PURCHASING ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE E ITHER BEFORE ONE YEAR OF THE TRANSFER OR EVEN TWO YEARS AFTER THE TRANSFER, THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS TO GIVE HIM RELIEF IN THE MATTER OF PAYMENT OF TAX ON THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IF A PERSON, WHO GETS SOME EXCES S AMOUNT UPON TRANSFER OF HIS OLD RESIDENTIAL PREMISES AND THEREAFTER PURC HASES OR CONSTRUCTS A NEW PREMISES WITHIN THE TIME STIPULATED UNDER SECTION 5 4 OF THE ACT, THE LEGISLATURE DOES NOT WANT HIM TO BE BURDENED WITH T AX ON THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND THEREFORE, RELIEF HAS BEEN GIVEN T O HIM IN RESPECT OF PAYING INCOME TAX ON THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE INTEN TION OF THE LEGISLATURE OR THE PURPOSE WITH WHICH THE SAID PROVISION HAS BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE ACT, IS ALSO VERY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVE N SOME RELIEF. THOUGH IT HAS BEEN VERY OFTEN SAID THAT COMMON SENSE IS A STR ANGER AND AN INCOMPATIBLE PARTNER TO THE INCOME TAX ACT AND IT I S ALSO SAID THAT EQUITY AND TAX ARE STRANGERS TO EACH OTHER, STILL THIS COU RT HAS OFTEN OBSERVED THAT PURPOSIVE INTERPRETATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE PRO VISIONS OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS V. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 658/115 TAXMAN 69 THIS COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT A PURPOSIVE INTERPRETA TION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SHOULD BE GIVEN WHILE CONSIDERING A CLAIM F OR EXEMPTION FROM TAX. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SAID THAT HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVISIONS WHICH SUBSERVE THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE SHOULD ALSO BE MADE WHILE CONSTRUING ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN ONE IS CONCERNED WITH EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF TAX. CONSIDERING THE AFORESTATED OBSERVATIONS AND THE PRINCIPLES WITH REGARD TO THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE PERTAINING TO THE TAX LAWS, ONE CAN VERY WELL INTER PRET THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 READ WITH SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, I.E. DEFINITION OF 'TRANSFER', ITA 557/JP/2018_ RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO 19 WHICH WOULD ENABLE THE APPELLANTS TO GET THE BENEFI T UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. 23 CONSEQUENCES OF EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL ARE ALSO VERY CLEAR AND THEY ARE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE APPELLANTS COULD NO T HAVE SOLD THE PROPERTY TO SOMEONE ELSE. IN PRACTICAL LIFE, THERE ARE EVENT S WHEN A PERSON, EVEN AFTER EXECUTING AN AGREEMENT TO SELL AN IMMOVABLE P ROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF ONE PERSON, TRIES TO SELL THE PROPERTY TO ANOTHER. IN OUR OPINION, SUCH AN ACT WOULD NOT BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BECAUSE ONCE AN AGREEMENT TO SELL IS EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF ONE PERSON, THE SAID PERSON G ETS A RIGHT TO GET THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED IN HIS FAVOUR BY FILING A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND THEREFORE, WITHOUT HESITATION WE CAN SAY THAT S OME RIGHT, IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PROPERTY, BELONGING TO THE APPELLANTS HAD BEEN EXTINGUISHED AND SOME RIGHT HAD BEEN CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE /TRANSFEREE, WHEN THE AGREEMENT TO SELL HAD BEEN EXECUTED. 24 THUS, A RIGHT IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL ASSET, VIZ . THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED BY THE APPELLANTS IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE/TRANSFEREE ON 27TH DECEMBER, 2002. THE SALE DEED COULD NOT BE EXECUTED FOR THE REASON THAT THE APPELLANTS HAD BEEN PREVENTED FROM DEALING WITH THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BY AN ORDER OF A COMPETENT COURT, WHICH THEY COULD NOT HAVE VIOLATED. 25 IN VIEW OF THE AFORESTATED PECULIAR FACTS OF THE C ASE AND LOOKING AT THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM TRANSFER' AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANTS WERE ENTITLE D TO RELIEF UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL G AIN WHICH THEY HAD EARNED IN PURSUANCE OF TRANSFER OF THEIR RESIDENTIAL PROPE RTY BEING HOUSE NO. 267, SECTOR 9-C, SITUATED IN CHANDIGARH AND USED FOR PUR CHASE OF A NEW ASSET/RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THUS, IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THAT WHEN AGREEMENT TO SALE IN RESPECT OF IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY IS EXECUTED A RIGHT IN PERSONAE IS CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE AND THEREBY THE VEN DOR IS RESTRAIN FROM SELLING THE PROPERTY TO SOMEONE ELSE BECAUSE THE VE NDEE GETS THE LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO ENFORCE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT WE HOLD THAT THE TRANSFER OF THE LAND IN QUESTION WOULD BE REGARDED AS ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT TO SA LE DATED 11.04.2007. THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW QUA THIS ISSUE A RE SET ASIDE. ITA 557/JP/2018_ RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO 20 ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AS WELL AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SATISFIED THE CONDITIO NS OF ACQUIRING NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND AGAINST THE SALE OF EXISTING AGRI CULTURAL LAND AND THEREFORE, IT IS A CASE OF SUBSTITUTION OF EXISTING AGRICULTUR AL LAND BY NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND PURCHASED F OR TOTAL COST OF RS. 2,47,60,900/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE QUA THIS ISSUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/09/2018. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 18 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SMT. RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD-4(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. 557/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR