Sohan Singh v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Jalandhar, Punjab And Another

In the High court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh --- Income-tax Appeal No. 354 of 2010Date of decision: 20.8.2010 Sohan Singh --- Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income-tax,Jalandhar, Punjab and another --- Respondents --- CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR --- Present:Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocatefor the appellant. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J, This order will dispose of Income-tax Appeal Nos. 354and 355 of 2010, filed at the instance of the assessee, asidentical questions of law have been raised in these appeals. Thefacts, however, have been taken from ITA No. 354 of 2010. This appeal filed under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) at the instance of the assesseechallenges the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (in short “the Tribunal”) passed on25.1.2008 in Income-tax Appeal No. 338/ASR/2007, pertainingto the assessment year 1999-2000. The assessee has claimed that the followingsubstantial questions of law arise for the consideration of thisCourt: 1-Whether in the facts and circumstances of the presentcase, the action of the authorities below not to allowthe deduction under Section 54B and thereby totallyignoring the ratio as laid down in (2005) 95 ITD 313(MUMBAI) is legally sustainable in the eyes of law?case, the action of the authorities below not to allowthe deduction under Section 54B and thereby totallyignoring the ratio as laid down in (2005) 95 ITD 313(MUMBAI) is legally sustainable in the eyes of law? 2-Whether in the facts and circumstances of the presentcase, the action of the authorities below in ignoringthe factum that the purchase consideration withexpenses has been borne by the assessee/ appellant,as son of the assessee/appellant has no source ofindependent income, is legally sustainable in the eyesof law?case, the action of the authorities below in ignoringthe factum that the purchase consideration withexpenses has been borne by the assessee/ appellant,as son of the assessee/appellant has no source ofindependent income, is legally sustainable in the eyesof law? 3-Whether in the facts and circumstances of the presentcase, the impugned orders A-1 to A-3 are legallysustainable in the eyes of law?case, the impugned orders A-1 to A-3 are legallysustainable in the eyes of law? The facts necessary for adjudicating the presentappeal are that the appellant received compensation in 1998 inrespect of his land that had been acquired in the year 1995. TheAssessing Officer issued a notice dated 16.3.2006, under Section148 of the Act and assessed the income of the assessee to thetune of Rs. 78,93,896/-, vide assessment order dated 1.11.2006,Annexure A-1. Notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act forimposition of the penalty was also issued to the assessee. Theassessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of IncomeTax, (Appeals), Jalandhar, Punjab [in short “the CIT(A)”]. Appealwas partly allowed vide order dated 7.5.2007, Annexure A-2.The claim of the assessee in respect of deduction under Section54B of the Act for the purchase of the agricultural land in thename of his son, amounting to Rs. 19,75,773/- was rejected. The assessee as well as the Revenue filed separateappeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed both the appeals vide Annexure A-3. This is how the assessee is again inappeal before us. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant andhave gone through the record with his assistance. The assessee as well as the Revenue filed separateappeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed both the appeals vide Annexure A-3. This is how the assessee is again inappeal before us. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant andhave gone through the record with his assistance. The issue that arises for consideration in this appealis, whether the assessee who has purchased agricultural land inthe name of his son from the amount of compensation receivedon account of acquisition of his land, is entitled to get deductionunder Section 54B of the Act. This matter is no longer resintegra. This Court earlier had an occasion to consider theprovisions of Section 54-B of the Act in Jai Narayan v. IncomeTax Officer, (2009) 221 CTR 255= (2008) 306 ITR 335, andafter examination thereof had held as under: “In interpreting the words contained in a statute, theCourt has not only to look at the words but also tolook at the context and the object of such wordsrelating to such matter and interpret the meaningintended to be conveyed by the use of the words underthe circumstances. The word “assessee” occurring ins. 54B must be interpreted in such a manner as toaccord with the context and subject of its usage. Areading of s. 54B of the Act nowhere suggests that thelegislature intended to advance the benefit of the saidsection to an assessee who purchased the agriculturalland even in the name of a third person. Wherever thelegislature intended it to be so, it had specificallyprovided under the provision. The term “assessee” isqualified by the expression “purchased any other landfor being used for agricultural purposes”, whichnecessarily means that the new asset which ispurchased has to be in the name of the assesseehimself for seeking exemption under s. 54B of the Act.The purchase of agricultural land by the assessee inhis son or grandson’s name, therefore, cannot be heldentitled to exemption under s. 54B of the Act.” In view of the observations of this Court, noticedabove, there is no scope for interference by this Court in thepresent appeal. The substantial questions of law as proposed donot arise in this appeal. The appeals are consequently dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE August 20, 2010*rkmalik* (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) JUDGE