Randhir Singh, Karnal V. ITO, Karnal

ITA 6394/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4964 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Deduction for capital gain; Capital asset; Benefit of exemption; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 54B; 54F; 147; 148; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6394/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI RANDHIR SINGH, KIRTI KARAN GOEL & ASSOCIATES, OPP. THANA CIVIL LINES, NEAR AMBEDKAR CHOWK, OLD G.T. ROAD, KARNAL VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, KARNAL PAN :BRHPS5866H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST O RDER DATED 07/10/2016 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS), KARNAL [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A)] FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S), KARNAL HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN ASSESSING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 1,31,55,507/- 2. THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING IN NO T GIVING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 54 B FOR THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE NAME APPELLANT BY SHRI KIRTI KARAN GARG, CA RESPONDENT BY SHRI SURENDER PAL, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 12.09.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15.11.2019 2 ITA NO.6394/DEL/2016 OF HIS SPOUSE BY PLACING RELIANCE UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT WHERE THE JUDGMENT WAS PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS THAT THE SPOUSE HAS INVESTED THE AMOUN T FROM HERSELF AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF PURCHASE OF ASSET BENAMI IN THE NAME OF WIFE. 3. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER T HAT THERE IS A DIRECT NEXUS OF INVESTMENT IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND PURCHA SED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND USED BY HIM FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE LAND SOLD AND BECAUSE THE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE'S WIFE IT COU LD NOT MEAN THAT THE INVESTMENT IN THE LAND IS NOT MADE BY THE ASSES SEE. AS SUCH, THERE WAS DUE COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 54 B. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN PLACING RELIAN CE UPON THE FINDINGS OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AS REPORTED IN 306 ITR 335 AND NOT FOLLOWING THE LATER JUDGMENTS OF OTHER HON BLE HIGH COURT DECISIONS AND HONBLE DELHI ITAT DECISION IN TTA NO . 5456/DEL./20I4. 5. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER T HE FACT THAT AGRICULTURAL LAND, THOUGH, PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE WIFE, BUT ASSESSEE IS THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE SAME SINCE TH E ENTIRE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION IS PAID BY THE ASSESSEEOUTO F THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF THE LAND. 6. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONSIDERING TH E SPOUSE AS THE THIRD PARTY OR A STRANGER AND NOT RELYING UPON THE FINDIN GS OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION IN ITA 4/2013. 7. THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN UPHELD AGAINST THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSION MADE DURIN G THE COURSE OF HEARING HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED PROPERLY. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS 1, 31,55,507/- MADE IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL GAIN BE DELETED. THE APP ELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER VARY AND/ OR WITHDRAW AN Y OR ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 31/03/2008, DECLARING INCOME OF 99,500/- BESIDES AGRICULTURE INCOME OF 1,70,000/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED REASONS FOR ESCAPEMENT O F INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT AND ISSUED NOTICE ON 13/03/2014, UNDER S ECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). T HE ASSESSEE 3 ITA NO.6394/DEL/2016 RESPONDED THAT RETURN OF INCOME ALREADY FILED MIGHT BE TREATED AS RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF T HE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF 1,33,55,507/- FOR LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TION 54B OF THE ACT FOR INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL LAND OF 15,97,793/- IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED WHEREAS THE DEDUCT ION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT FOR THE INVESTMENT IN THE NA ME OF WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE WAS AGGRIEVED ON THE D ISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT (A) REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE DISAL LOWANCE RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HA RYANA HIGH COURT (JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT) DATED 06/07/2015 IN THE CASE OF DINESH VERMA, PASSED IN ITA 381 OF 2014. THE REL EVANT FINDING OF LEARNED CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED UNDER: 2.2 FINDINGS:- AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS, TH E PROVISION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AS .WELL AS VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THIS ISSUE THIS GROUND IS BEING FINALIZED AFTER MAK ING THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS:- 1) ON GOING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 ,31,55,507/- ,IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE AND HAS SUBSEQUENTLY CLAIM ED EXEMPTION U/S 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE AO HAS HIGHLIGHT ED THAT SINCE THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 54B HAS NOT BEE N FULFILLED, THIS CLAIM COULD NOT BE ALLOWED. IN THIS REGARD, THE REL EVANT PORTION OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 54B ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 54B. '[SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2) , WHERE THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES] FROM THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET BEING LAND WHICH, IN THE TWO YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE ON WHICH* THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, WAS BEING USED BY [ THE 4 ITA NO.6394/DEL/2016 ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR HIS PARENT, OR A H INDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY] FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES [(HEREI NAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ORIGINAL ASSET)], AND THE ASSESSEE HAS, W ITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AFTER THAT DATE, PURCHASED ANY OTHER L AND FOR BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, THEN, INSTEAD OF TH E CAPITAL GAIN BEING CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS INCOME OF THE PREVIO US YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, IT SHALL BE DEALT WI TH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THIS SE CTION.' ON GOING THROUGH THE PROVISION IT IS CLEAR THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD TO PURCHASE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THERE IS NO P ROVISION FOR ANY OTHER PERSON WHO CAN MAKE INVESTMENT ON HIS BEHALF TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM THE EXEMPTION U/S 54B. 2) IT IS CRUCIAL TO KEEP IN MIND THAT IF THE INCOME TAX ACT INTENDED TO PROVIDE SUCH LIBERTY OF MAKING INVESTME NT IN THE NAME OF WIFE OR CLOSE RELATIVES, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SPEC IFIC MENTION OF SUCH PROVISION IN THE ACT ITSELF. IN THIS REGARD, R ELIANCE IS PLACED UPON THE DECISION OF JAI NARAIN VS ITO (2008) 306 ITR 33 5 (P&H), WHERE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE:- IN INTERPRETING THE WORDS CONTAINED IN THE 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 T HE WORDS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE WORD ASSESSEE' OCCURR ING IN SECTION 54B MUST BE INTERPRETED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO ACCORD WITH THE CONTEST AND SUBJECT OF ITS USAGE. A READIN G TO SECTION 54B OF THE ACT NOWHERE SUGGESTS THAT THE LEGISLATUR E INTENDED TO ADVANCE THE BENEFIT OF THE SAID SECTION TO AN AS SESSEE WHO PURCHASED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND EVEN IN THE NAME OF A THIRD PERSON. WHEREVER THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED IT TO BE SO, IT HAD SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED UNDER THE PROVISION. THE TERM 'ASSESSEE' IS QUALIFIED BY THE EXPRESSION 'PURCHASED ANY OTHER LAND FOR BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES', WHICH NECESS ARILY MEANS THAT THE NEW ASSET WHICH IS PURCHASED HAS TO BE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF FOR SEEKING EXEMPTION UNDER SE CTION 54B OF THE ACT. THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BY TH E ASSESSEE IN HIS SON OR GRANDSON'S NAME, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE HE LD ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT. WE MAY M AKE A BRIEF REFERENCE TO THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED COUNSEL MAINLY RELIED UPON THE DE CISION IN V. NATARAJAN [2006] 287 ITR 271 (MAD), WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. THE MADRAS HIGH COURT V. NATARAJAN'S CASE [2006] 28 7 ITR 271 WAS DEALING WITH A CASE RELATING O SECTION 54 OF TH E ACT WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WHO AFTER SELLING HIS RESIDENTIAL HOUS E HAD 5 ITA NO.6394/DEL/2016 PURCHASED ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN HIS WIFE'S N AME, THE COURT HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH CIRCU MSTANCES WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE A CT. AFTER GIVING OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE VIEW ASLAID DOWN V. NATRAJANS CASE [2006] 287 ITR 271 (MAD.) THE HON'BLE COURT HAS CLEARLY HIGHLIGHTED THAT TH ERE WAS NO SUCH INTENTION TO EXTEND THE BENEFIT EITHER TO THE WIFE OR OTHER CLOSE RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE. ; 3) IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THAT IF THE LOG IC EXTENDED BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT IS ACCEPTED, THAT THE INVESTMENT C AN BE MADE IN THE NAME OF ANY OTHER PERSON AND THE ONLY CONDITION REQ UIRED WAS THAT INVESTMENT SHOULD BE MADE IN AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE N THE INVESTMENT BE COULD BE MADE EVEN IN THE NAME OF ANY STRANGER W ITHOUT EXCEPTION. EVEN THOUGH THE PROVISION OF THE ACT HAS NOT USED THE WORD RELATED TO OWNERSHIP, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT T HE INTENTION OF THE ACT WAS CLEARLY THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF SHOULD HA VE PURCHASED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. IT IS ALWAYS IMPORTANT TO AP PRECIATE THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE LEGAL PROVISIONS ARE VERY CRUCIAL A ND IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ACT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY LIBERTY TO THE AS SESSEE FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL LAND RELATING TO PURCHAS E MADE IN THE NAME OF WIFE OF ANY OTHER PERSON. 4) RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED UPON THE DECISION OF DIN ESH VERMA IN ITA NO. 381 OF 2014 DATED 06.07.2015 (P&H) WHERE THE HO N'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD THAT THERE WAS NO PR OVISION IN THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR CONFERRING SUCH A BENEFIT, IN TH E NAME OF WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE CLAIM U/S 54B WAS NOT JU STIFIED. 5) THE RELIANCE PLACED UPON BY THE AR OF THE APPELL ANT ON DIFFERENT JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED SINCE TH E ITAT DECISION OF DIFFERENT COURTS AS ALSO THE DECISION OF THE MAD RAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF V. NATARAJAN CANNOT OVER RULE THE FINDI NGS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAI NARAIN VS ITO (2008) 206 ITR (SUPRA). THE AR ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF DELHI HIG H COURT WHICH RELATES TO THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND IS THUS DIFFERENT ON FACTS. 2.3 AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIOUS DECISIONS AS WELL AS THE PROVISION OF THE INCOME TA X ACT AND ALSO THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE, I AM CONVINCED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION U/S 54B MADE IN THIS CASE IS FULLY JUSTIF IED AND ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,31,55,507/- I S UPHELD. 6 ITA NO.6394/DEL/2016 3. IN THE GROUNDS RAISED THE ONLY ISSUE IS DISALLOWANC E OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54B CORRESPONDING TO THE IN VESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL LAND MADE BY THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REITERA TED THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND FILED A W RITTEN SUBMISSION, WHICH IS REPRODUCED UNDER: .THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE YOUR GO ODSELF. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS HEREBY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD S OLD AN AGRICULTURE LAND. AND WITH RESPECT TO THE CAPITAL GAIN TAX COMP UTATION IN A.Y. 2007-08, IT IS HEREBY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURING 7 ACRE 2 KANAL & 11 MAR LA AGAINST A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 22688125.00. ITS RELEVANT COST INDEX COMES UPTO RS. 3798430.00 (TAKING COST INDEX AS 519 OF F.Y. 20 06-07). THE DIFFERENCE OF SALE PRICE AND INDEX COST OF THE SOLD PROPERTY CAME TO RS. 18889695/-. CAPITAL GAIN EXEMPTION U/S 54B THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED AGRICULTURE LAND IN THE NAME OF SMT. SANTOSH RANI W/O SHRI RANDHIR SINGH WORTH RS. 1,33, 01,8101- 1. RS 1,26,47,100 DATED 08.01.2007) 2. RS 2,64,710 DATED 16.12.2008) 3. RS 3,90,000 DATED 19.12.2006) ALSO THE ASSESSE HAS PURCHASED AGRICULTURE LAND IN HIS NAME WORTH RS. 15,97.793/- RS5,70,310 DATED26.09.2007 RS1,18,800 DATED31.01.2007 RS 72,000 DATED31.01.2007 RS1,10,250 DATED29.12.2006 RS1,32,666 DATED29.12.2006 RS2,38,400 DATED26.12.2006 RS3,15,366 DATED23.05.2006 7 ITA NO.6394/DEL/2016 THE PURCHASE OF LANDS WAS MADE ON DIFFERENT DATES A ND NO TWO PURCHASES RELATES TO EACH OTHER. MOREOVER THESE LAN DS WERE PURCHASED WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THEREFORE BECOMES ELIGIBLE FOR CAPITAL GAIN EXE MPTION U/S 54B OF INCOME TAX ACT. CASE LAW : IN THE ITA NO.6390/ DEL/ 2016, THE ASSESSEE MR. ROHTAS SINGH HAD SOLD AN AGRICULTURE LAND FOR A CON SIDERATION OF RS.38300000/- AND THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED THE SAL ES CONSIDERATION OF RS. 14330500/- IN THE AGRICULTURE LAND BOUGHT IN THE NAME OF HIS SPOUSE AND RS. 10876000/- IN HIS OW N NAME, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED THE SALES CONSIDERATION IN TH E PURCHASING OF AGRICULTURE LAND AND THE ITAT, DELHI IN THIS CASE H AD RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE CIT(A) TO PASS A FRESH SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, DE LHI HAS BEEN ATTACHED HEREWITH. CONCLUSION : YOU ARE REQUESTED TO KINDLY ALLOW THE ASSESSEE TH E EXEMPTION UNDER SEC.54B FOR PURCHASE OF THE AGRICUL TURE LAND IN THE NAME OF HIS SPOUSE. FURTHER, AS PER THE CASE OF THE ROHTAS SINGH, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO ALLOW THE EXEMPTION FOR I NVESTMENT MADE IN THE NAME OF HIS SPOUSE HAS BEEN PARTLY ALLOWED. NOW, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO KINDLY ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E TO AVOID THE GENUINE HARDSHIP TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE TOTAL CAPITAL GAIN EXEMPTION (INCLUDI NG AGRICULTURAL LAND) U/S 54B AMOUNTS TO RS 1,48,59,602/-. 5. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO PROVI SION IN SECTION 54B FOR CONSIDERING INVESTMENT BY THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE IS, WHETHER THE INVESTMENT ON AGRICULTU RAL MADE BY THE SPOUSE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ROHITAS SINGH (SUPRA), WHEREIN THE EX PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) WITH 8 ITA NO.6394/DEL/2016 THE DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER. IN THE SAID ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE WHETH ER THE INVESTMENT ON AGRICULTURAL MADE BY THE SPOUSE OF TH E ASSESSEE, CAN BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER S ECTION 54B OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 2.1. THE PRESENT APPEALS BEFORE US, FILED BY THE T WO ASSESSEE IN ITAT AGAINST THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED ORDERS, EACH DA TED 07.10.2016. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE T WO ASSESSEES WERE NOT REPRESENTED. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT DISPUTE D ISSUES IN BOTH THE APPEALS MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A ) WITH THE DIRECTION TO PASS SPEAKING ORDERS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ASSI STANCE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEES, WE ARE PERSUADED BY THE SUBM ISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF THE TWO ASSESSEES, EACH DATED 07.10.2016 AND RES TORE THE DISPUTED ISSUES TO THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, HAVING REGARD TO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. BOTH THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH AFORESAID DIRECTION. 3. BEFORE WE PART, WE EXPLICITLY CLARIFY THAT THE A SSESSEES WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO APPROACH ITAT FOR RESTORATION OF THE APP EALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL RULES, 1963. IF THE ASSESSEE(S) DO APPROACH THE TRIBUNAL F OR RESTORATION OF THE APPEALS, THE MATTER WILL BE CONSIDERED IN ACCOR DANCE WITH LAW AS WELL AS FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. 7. SECTION 54B OF THE ACT REQUIRES THE ASSESSEE TO PU RCHASE ANY OTHER LAND FOR BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURP OSES WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE SALE FROM TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL BEING LAND. IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR PROVISIONS , INVESTMENT MADE BY ANY OTHER PERSON PARTICULARLY THE SPOUSE OF THE ASSESSEE, CANNOT BE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT, WHICH IS BINDING ON THE AUTHORITIES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION O F THE HONBLE 9 ITA NO.6394/DEL/2016 HIGH COURT. THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON TH E ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS WELL REASONED AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERR OR IN THE SAME. THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN D ISPUTE IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH NOVEMBER, 2019. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 15 TH NOVEMBER, 2019. RK/-(D.T.D.) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI