SH. GURDEEP SINGH S/O SH. GURBACHAN SINGH,KURUKSHETRA vs. ITO, KURUKSHETRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 679/CHANDI/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 August 2018AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to establish the land as HUF property. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for further examination of ownership and eligibility for exemption.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold agricultural land and claimed exemption under Section 54B for reinvestment in new agricultural land. The Assessing Officer disallowed the exemption because the new land was purchased in the name of the assessee's son, not the assessee himself.

What were the issues?

Whether the reinvestment in agricultural land in the name of the son qualifies for exemption under Section 54B when the original land is claimed to be HUF property. The ownership of the land and eligibility for exemption under Section 54B.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH’A’, CHANDIGARH

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri. B.M. Monga, Shri. Rohit Kaura
For Respondent: Shri. Sandeep Dahiya
Hearing: 27/07/2018Pronounced: 07/08/2018

PER BENCH:

All the above appeals have been filed by different Assessee’s against the separate orders of CIT(A), Karnal dt. 14/02/2017.

2.

Since the grounds raised in all the appeals are similar, they are being disposed by way of this common order. The grounds pertaining to reopening of the case under section 148 is not pressed by the assessee. We shall deal with ITA No. 679/CHD/2017 as a lead case.

2.1 Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 679/Chd/2017:

1.

That the order of Ld. CIT(A) is against the law and facts of the case.

2.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the Capital gains addition of Rs. 5,69,96,450/- in the hands of appellant without appreciating the vital fact that land sold was HUF Property, acquired by the great grand forefathers of the assessee. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the action of AO who taxed the Long term capital gain of Rs. 5,69,96,450/- on sale of ancestral property in the hands of the appellant without appreciating the fact that the land belonged to Joint Hindu undivided family and was not acquired by the appellant or his father and further the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the action simply on the fact that the appellant has himself shown capital gains in his individual return. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the disallowance of exemption amounting to Rs. 5,69,96,450/- under section 54B on the ground that the investment in agricultural land has been made in the name of Son (member of HUF) without appreciating the fact that the investment for claiming exemption u/s 54B has been made by appellant (Father) out of sale proceeds of the land. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified while upholding the reassessment Order Passed by the Ld. AO without fulfilling the mandate of Section 147/148 of the Act. 6. Without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds of appeal of HUF and strictly in the alternative the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the disallowance of exemption under section 54B on the grounds that investment in agricultural land has been made in the hands of son without appreciating the fact that the investment of claim of exemption u/s 54B has been made by appellant (Father) out of sale proceeds of land.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has sold agricultural land situated at Village Jhambra with other three co-owners as per the sale deed dt. 10/10/2012. The Assessing Officer held that the action of the assessee claiming deduction under section 54B cannot be accepted as the new agriculture land was purchased in the name of the son of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has

also determined the value of the acquisition of the land @ Rs. 30,000/- as against Rs. 50,000/- claimed by the assessee.

4.

The assessee claimed that the property is being held in the name of HUF and the assessee and his son being co-parcenaries of the HUF the deduction has been rightly claimed under section 54B.

5.

Before us it was argued by the Ld.AR that the issue of ownership of the land has not been established by the revenue. Ld. DR argued that though assessee claimed that the property was a HUF property but the assessee has sold the property in his individual name. It was argued that even before Assessing Officer the assessee could not bring about any tangible material to prove that the property in question is indeed the property of the HUF.

6.

We have gone through the record before us and find that, while assessee claimed that the land in question was an HUF property he could not produce any document to that extent and the revenue has also not brought anything on record which truly depict the details of ownership. Under such circumstances, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with directions to both the parties to establish the ownership of the asset i.e. Land in question and then revenue to examine the issue of eligibility for exemption under section 54F.

7.

As a result all the appeals of the assessee are treated as ‘set aside’.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

Sd/- Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated :07/08/2018 AG

Copy to:

1.

The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) The DR 5.

More judgments on Section 54B

All 814 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →