Bahadur Singh Vs CIT (Appeals) Faridabad And Another (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Summary: The Punjab and Haryana High Court considered an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed by Bahadur Singh against the orders of the authorities below declining exemption under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The appellant’s case was that he and his three brothers had sold jointly owned land and that, in respect of his one-fourth share, he purchased land in the name of his wife and claimed exemption under Section 54B. The authorities below declined the exemption by relying upon the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Faridabad vs. Shri Dinesh Verma, ITA No.381 of 2014, decided on 06.07.2015. The judgment in Dinesh Verma is available as a TaxGuru-hosted copy of the High Court judgment and records the Court’s view that Section 54B does not extend the exemption where the subsequent agricultural property is purchased by a person other than the assessee, including a close relative such as the assessee’s wife or children.
Before the High Court, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the decision in Dinesh Verma had not considered CIT vs. Gurnam Singh, reported at (2010) 327 ITR 278, and contended that, in view of Gurnam Singh, the appellant was entitled to exemption under Section 54B.
The High Court rejected that contention. It held that the issue was directly covered by its decision in Dinesh Verma. The Court recorded as an undisputed fact that, after selling the agricultural land, the appellant had purchased land worth his share in the name of his wife.
The Court further distinguished Gurnam Singh. It observed that the property in Gurnam Singh had been purchased in the joint names of the assessee and his only son, whereas in the present case the land had been purchased in the name of the wife. On that factual distinction, the Court held that reliance on Gurnam Singh did not advance the appellant’s case.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The Court also dealt with the appellant’s application seeking condonation of a delay of 946 days in filing the appeal. Since the matter had already been considered on merits and the appeal was dismissed, the Court held that no separate order was required on the condonation application.
Cases Discussed
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Faridabad vs. Shri Dinesh Verma, ITA No. 381 of 2014, decided on 06.07.2015 — followed as directly covering the issue where replacement agricultural land was purchased in the name of the assessee’s wife.
- CIT vs. Gurnam Singh, (2010) 327 ITR 278 — distinguished because, as recorded by the Court, the property in that case was purchased in the joint names of the assessee and his only son, unlike the present case where the property was purchased in the wife’s name.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
This appeal has been filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order of the authorities below declining exemption under Section 54B of the Act, to the appellant.
2. The case of the appellant is that he and his three brothers hadth sold jointly owned land and for his 1/4 share he purchased land in the name of his wife and claimed exemption under Section 54B of the Act. The authorities below declined the exemption in view of judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Faridabad vs. Shri Dinesh Verma; ITA No. 381 of 2014, decided on 06.07.2015.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that in the afore-said judgment, this Court has not considered the case of CIT vs. Gurnam Singh, (2010) 327 ITR 0278 and in view of Gurnam Singh’s case (supra), the appellant was entitled to exemption under Section 54B of the Act.
4. The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant lacks merit.
5. It is an undisputed fact that after selling the agricultural land the appellant purchased a land worth his share, in the name of his wife. The issue is directly covered by the decision of this Court in Dinesh Verma’s case (supra). The reliance of Gurnam Singh’s case (supra) will not enhance the case of the appellant as the property in that case was purchased in the joint name of the assessee and his only son, which is not the case in the present case.
6. Dismissed.
7. As the matter has been considered on merit, no separate order is being passed in the application seeking condonation of delay of 946 days in filing the present appeal.
Notes:
1 [2015] 370 ITR 212 (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana) (Mag.)
2 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 420 (Patna)
3 [1995] 216 ITR 9 (RAJ)
4 [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC)
