Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-4 v. Dr.mahabir Prasad Son Of Sahdeo Yadav

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNAMiscellaneous Appeal No.391 of 2009 ====================================================== Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-4 .... Appellant/ Appellant/s Versus Dr.Mahabir Prasad son of Sahdeo Yadav, r/o Flat No.35, Tulsi Vatika Apartment, Patliputra Colony, Patna-13 .... Respondent/ Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr Harshwardhan Prasad, Advocate Mr. Archana Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr Ajay Kumar Rastogi, Advocate Mr. Manish Rastogi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGHand HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) Heard the parties in respect of IA No.3221 of 2012. The same has been filed along with Vakalatnama of one Ratan Kumar Tulsi son of the sole respondent Dr. Mahabir Prasad who is said to have died on 16.2.2012. The prayer in the IA is to allow substitution of the three heirs and legal representatives mentioned in paragraph 1 of the IA. 8 15-05-2012 In the facts of the case, the prayer for substitution is allowed. Let the three heirs who are wife and sons of deceased Dr. Mahabir Prasad be substituted in his place. Mr Ajay Kumar Rastogi one of the counsels representing Ratan Kumar Tulsi undertakes to file Vakalatnama on behalf of other two heirs also within four weeks. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the heirs of deceased respondent Dr Mahabir Prasad who has been substituted today. The Tribunal has considered the relevant materials and sk has then agreed with the findings of learned CIT (A) that assessee received agriculture land on the death of his father and that land being agricultural land was a source of income for the HUF. The findings are supported by materials on record and do not suffer from any error of law. The other issue relating to exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act has been decided by the Tribunal after considering the relevant fact that the assessing officer had also charged capital gain in the year 1999- 2000 and hence, there would not be any scope to hold that the transfer of land had taken place in 1991 as claimed by the Department. The nature of development agreement has been properly appreciated by the Tribunal for rejecting the contention of the Department regarding transfer having taken place in 1991. Since both the material issues have been decided by the Tribunal as per law, we find no substantial question of law for determination in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Vikash Jain, J)