JAI NARAYAN Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C . M. Appln. No. 14769 -C II of 2006 This is an application for condonation of 126 days' delay in refiling the appeal.

(2.) FOR the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 126 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. IT Appeal No. 447 of 2006 of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench "E", New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), passed in ITA No. 3835/Del/2003 relating to the asst. yr. 1996 -97 has been challenged. The assessee has claimed that the following substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court :

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that, according to s. 54B of the Act, there is no stipulation in the said section which restricts that the land should be purchased in the name of the assessee himself. According to learned counsel, the assessee has purchased the land in his son and grandsons' names and the same would be entitled to exemption under s. 54B of the Act. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. V. Natarajan (2006) 203 CTR (Mad) 37 : (2007) 287 ITR 271 (Mad) to submit that where on the sale of residential house, the assessee had purchased house for residence within the stipulated period though it was in his wife's name, yet the assessee was held entitled to exemption under s. 54 of the Act.