The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict interpretation of taxing statutes and the requirement for the assessee to establish entitlement to exemption or concession.

JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law :

Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was justified in holding that the deduction under Section 54B (sic 54-A) of the Act of 1961 cannot be allowed to the assessee/appellant since the investment in purchase of new agricultural land was made by the assessee not in his own name, but in the name of his wife?

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant sold agricultural land to M/s Golden Bricks Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., on which long term capital gains was assessed at Rs.66,66,284/- and which was finally determined at Rs.36,66,284/- by the CIT (Appeals), Raipur, deleting addition of Rs.30,00,000/-. The ITAT, Raipur Bench has upheld the determination of long term capital gains at Rs.36,66,284/-. According to the appellant, out of the sale proceeds of the assessee purchased agricultural lands as under :

3. Since the Assessing Officer determined the long term capital gains arising out of sale proceeds of urban agricultural land at Rs.66,66,284/- and did not allow deduction under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the IT Act’) in respect of investments made in purchase of agricultural lands in the name of his wife. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (A) and the CIT (A), after perusal of the evidence, accepted the contention that the land was sold for Rs.45,80,000/- and Rs.30,00,000/- was received as gift from father-in-law Sant Ram Chaturvedani in cash, which was deposited in the bank account. The CIT (A) allowed exemption under Section 54B for an amount of Rs.9,90,300/- and Rs.8,62,600/- invested in the name of wife. The same was subject of challenge before the ITAT by Revenue. The ITAT annulled the deduction under Section 54B of the IT Act on the ground that the exemption could have been allowed only if the investment is made by the assessee in his own name and since the investment was made in the name of wife, son, father, etc. did not allow the deduction of Rs.9,90,300/- and Rs.8,62,600/- under Section 54B and set aside the order of the CIT (A) and restored back the order of the Assessing Officer on this point. The same was subject of challenge before this Court. This Court admitted the appeal on the substantial question of law, as quoted supra.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the ITAT misdirected itself to interpret Section 54B of the IT Act. He would further submit that language of Sections 54, 54B and 54F of the IT Act are pari materia and as per the law laid down by the Delhi High Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax-XII v Shri Kamal Wahal, ITA-4/2013 (dated 11-1-2013) when the property was purchased in the name of wife the deduction was allowed. He would also submit that since the Supreme Court in the matter of The Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal I, Calcutta v M/s Vegetables Products Ltd., 88-ITR-192 (SC) has laid down that when there is more than one view, then the view which is favourable to the tax payer should be preferred. According to the learned counsel, taking lead of it when the word to Section 54F are pari materia the provisions of Section 54B for deduction should have been interpreted as per the dictum laid down by the Delhi High Court.

5. Learned counsel would submit that the ITAT, Pune Bench ‘A’, Pune in its decision rendered in the matter of Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi v The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune, ITA No.939/PUN/2016 AY 2011-12 (decided on 19-8-2019), has similarly held that while interpreting the provisions of Section 54F which in alternate to facilitate the housing scheme and accordingly interpreted the Section in favour