COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. GURNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act') is directed against the order dt. 24th April, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A', Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in IT/SS/No. 5/Chandi/2003 in case of the respondent assessee for the block period 1st April, 1988 to 15th July, 1998 by raising the following substantial question of law:

(2.) IN the present case, the respondent is an illiterate agriculturist. During the search which was conducted in the business premises of M/s S.S. Property Dealer on 15th July, 1998, an agreement to sell dt. 26th March, 1997 was seized. The said agreement revealed that Gurnam Singh (respondent) sold 60 Kanals of agricultural land situated in village Bhamia Kalan to one Sukhdev Singh @ Rs. 8,00,000 per acre. The amount of Rs. 5,00,000 was obtained by him as earnest money. The AO on the basis of said agreement initiated the proceedings under Section 158BD of the Act by giving notice to show cause why the respondent had not paid the capital gains tax on the sale of the said agricultural land. The AO vide order dt. 28th June, 2002 assessed the income at Rs. 18,33,200. The claim made by the respondent for deduction of Rs. 16,33,200 under Section 54B of the Act in respect of the agricultural land purchased by him along with his son was not allowed on the ground that exemption from capital gains was available in case the same was invested by the assessee for the purpose of purchasing another agricultural land and not in respect of the land purchased by any other person.

(3.) WE have heard the counsel for the Revenue and gone through the aforesaid impugned order. In our opinion, from the impugned order, no substantial question of law is arising for consideration of this Court as the Tribunal while recording a pure finding of fact has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. Undisputedly, in this case the assessee had sold the agricultural land which was being used by him for agricultural purposes. Out of sale proceeds of the said sale, the assessee has purchased other piece of land (land in question) in his name and in the name of his only son, who was bachelor and dependent upon him, for being used for agricultural purposes within the stipulated time. Further, it is not the case of the Revenue that from the sale proceeds of the agricultural land earlier owned by the assessee, the land in question was purchased for any other purpose than the agricultural purpose. Undisputedly, the purchased land is being used by the assessee only for agricultural purpose and merely because in the sale deed his only son was also shown as co -owner, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that it does not make any difference because the purchased land is being used by the assessee for agricultural purposes. It is not the case of the Revenue that the said land is being used exclusively by his son. In our view, a pure finding of fact has been recorded by the Tribunal which does not require any interference in this appeal.