VIPIN MALIK Vs. C.I.T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/assessee, which is a HUF, sold its agricultural land for Rs. 14,28,400/- in September, 1995 giving rise to a long term capital gain of Rs. 9,67,412/-. The assessee claimed that the capital gain be not charged as it was entitled to the benefit of Section 54-F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed to have purchased a three bed room flat in Kanungo Cooperative Group Housing Society and, therefore, claimed the entitlement for the benefit of Section 54-F of the Act. All the three authorities below namely, the Assessing Officer (A.O), The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT)(A) and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (I.T.A.T) have declined the benefit of Section 54-F to the Assessee.

(2.) THE relevant portion of Section 54-F reads as under:-

(3.) BEFORE us, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.Ganesh, on behalf of the assessee, has strongly urged that the authorities below misdirected themselves in requiring that the purchase of the property must be paid after the selling of the agricultural property in as much as the very language of Section 54F contains an eventuality of purchase of the residential house even before one year of the sale of the agricultural land.