He Fita v. Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) Faridabad Andanother

108IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH BAHADUR SINGH he fITA No. 56 of 2020 (O&M)DECIDED ON: FEBRUARY 10, 2020 APPELLANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FARIDABAD ANDANOTHER. RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present:Ms. Veena Hooda, Advocatefor the appellant. AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral): KK K CM No. 3147/CII of 2020 Application is allowed as prayed for. ITA No. 56 of 2020 This appeal has been filed under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act’) against the order of the authorities belowdeclining exemption under Section 54B of the Act, to the appellant. ?DThe case of the appellant is that he and his three brothers hadsold jointly owned land and for his 1/4[th]share he purchased land in the nameof his wite and claimed exemption under Section 54B of the Act. Theauthorities below declined the exemption in view of judgment of this Court 1nCommissioner of IncomeFTax, Faridabad vs. Shri Dinesh Verma;ITA No. 381 of2014, decided on 06.07.2015. 3,Learned counsel for the appellant states that in the afore-saidjudgment, this Court has not considered the case of|CIT vs. Gurnam Singh,(2010) 327 ITR 0278and inview ofGurnam Singh-acase (Supra), the ITA No. 56 of 2020 appellant was entitled to exemption under Section 54B of the Act. 5 The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant lacks merit. onIt is an undisputed fact that after selling the agricultural land theappellant purchased a land worth his share, in the name of his wife. Theissue is directly covered by the decision of this Court in.Dinesh Verma-aCase(supra). The reliance of Gurnam Singh's case (Supra) will not enhance thecase of the appellant as the property in that case was purchased in the jointname of the assessee and his only son, which is not the case in the presentCdSe. TiDismissed. 8 As the matter has been considered on merit, no separate order isbeing passed in the application seeking condonation of delay of 946 days infiling the present appeal. IAJAY TEWARI]JUDGE JIAVNEESH JHINGANJUDGE FEBRUARY 10, 2020 sham1. Whether speaking/ reasonedYes/No2. Whether reportableYes/No