Sitaram Pahariya (HUF) v. ITO (2021) 190 ITD 239 / 212 TTJ 273 / 203 DTR 137 (Agra)(Trib.)

S. 54B : Capital gains-Land used for agricultural purposes-HUF-Entitle for exemption. [S. 2(31), 45]

The Tribunal held that assessee HUF is entitled to benefit of S.  54B of the Act for following reasons :

  • The word assessee used in S. 54B, had always included HUF, and further the amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2013 by inserting “the assessee being an individual or his parent or an (HUF)” was clarificatory in nature.
  • Word ‘person’ as defined in S. 2(31) includes individual as well as HUF and therefore HUF was entitled to benefit u/s 54B.

•       Benefit of any doubt in respect of taxability of exemption should be given to assessee rather than to revenue. (AY. 2012-13)