CIT vs. JOGINDERPAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . 02.02.2011 . . Present: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. . . + ITA No. 235/2011 . . In the income tax returns filed by the respondent/assessee for the assessment year 2005-06 he had declared that he held some agricultural land and earned capital gain which he had invested in Canara Bank Capital Gain Tax Account and from this amount he had purchased land and constructed a residential house. On this basis, the assessee claimed exemption of capital gain under Section 54(F) of the Act. The Assessing Officer did not accept the submission of the assessee and held that he shall not be entitled to benefit of Section 54(F) of the Act, as the assessee had not given evidence on record indicating the fact that his case falls within the exemption of Section 2(14). The assessee filed an appeal . . before the CIT(A) in which he succeeded. The review against the order of the CIT(A) had been dismissed by the Tribunal confirming the order of the CIT(A). A perusal of the order of the CIT(A) as well as ITAT clearly reveals following findings on facts:- . 1. The assessee, in fact, purchased the piece of agricultural land on 9th July, 1988 for a consideration of Rs.1,73,958/-. He had spent Rs.50,000/- on construction of boundary wall. Thus, the total amount spent for the acquisition of the said property was Rs.2,23,958/- . 2. He had sold this agricultural land after seventeen years, i.e., on 20th February, 2005 for a total consideration of Rs.54,62,000/-. . 3. It is an accepted case that the aforesaid profit was within the ambit of Section 2(14) of the Act. It is further discerned from the order of the authorities below that the only area of dispute was that the capital gain earned by the assessee was not deposited in any Capital Gain Scheme and according to the Assessing Officer said capital gain was not utilized within one year for the purchase of the house. . . On both aspects, the finding of the fact of CIT(A) as well as of the ITAT are in favour of the assessee. Not only it is found from the evidence on record that the assessee had opened Capital Gain Scheme Account with Canara Bank, he even utilized this capital gain for construction of house which had been constructed on 24th February, 2008 i.e., within three years from the sale of capital assets. On this premise, the findings are recorded that all the provisions specified under Section 54(F) of the Income Tax Act stands satisfied and the assessee was entitled to the benefit of exemption under the Act. Hence, no substantial question of law arise for consideration, therefore, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. . . A.K. SIKRI, J. . . M.L. MEHTA, J. FEBRUARY 2, 2011 AK . . . . . 54 and 55#