Shri Ranjeet Singh, Bathinda vs Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (1), Bathinda on 30 August, 2023
assessee is covered by order of the Agra Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT in the
case of Jagdish Arora in which it has been held that the benefit of section
96 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 cannot be given to the appellant from Long
Term Capital Gains, arising from Compulsory Acquisition of Land under
National Highway Act, 1956, while ignoring the contention of the assessee
that the CIT(A) NFAC has allowed the exemption, on identical facts, in the
case of Jaswinder Kaur Sahni, Bathinda; that ignored the contention of the
assessee that the exemption has been allowed, on identical facts, by the
Cuttack Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Smt. Annapurna Mishra
Vs. ITO [2019] 106 taxmann.com 170 and Patna Bench of the Hon'ble
ITAT in the case of ITO, Patna vs. Shri Suresh Prasad [Patna Bench] and
Kerala High Court in the case of Raghavan Nair Vs. ACIT [2018] 89
taxmann.com 212 [Kerala]. Thus, the Ld. AR argued that the Ld.CIT(A)
NFAC has erred on facts and law in rejecting the claim of exemption of the
assessee from Long Term Capital Gains, arising from Compulsory
Acquisition of Land under National Highway Act, 1956, while ignoring the
settled principle of law as laid down by Apex Court that where there are two
opinions of Court on one issue, the opinion in favour of the assessee
should be followed. The AR argued that Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred on
facts and law in rejecting the claim of exemption of the assessee from Long
13
ITA Nos.91 & 135/Asr/2023
Ranjeet Singhv. ITO & Ors.