9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Interpretation of sections 54E(3) and 155(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 1975-76.
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh involved a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the applicability of sections 54E(3) and 155(10B) for the assessment year 1975-76. The case revolved around the rectification of assessment due to enhanced compensation received by the assessee from the Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, for land acquisition in 1974. The assessee had invested the additional compensation in National Rural Development Bonds as per section 54E(3), introduced by the Finance Act, 1978, effective from April 1, 1978. The Income-tax Officer rectified the assessment to tax the enhanced compensation, but declined to grant relief under section 54E(3) as it was not in force at the time of acquisition. The Commissioner of Income-tax allowed the exemption under section 155(10B) and directed the Income-tax Officer to compute capital gains considering the investment in specified assets. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, leading the Revenue to seek a reference. The High Court emphasized the need to consider beneficial provisions introduced by the legislature when rectifying assessments based on subsequent events. Sections 54E(3), 155(7A), and 155(10B) should be interpreted harmoniously to fulfill the legislative purpose. The court rejected a narrow interpretation of section 54E(3) and held that the provision should not be limited to future acquisitions. Referring to the decision in S. Gopal Reddy v. CIT, the court clarified that the period for investment in specified assets should be from the date of receipt of compensation. The court affirmed that section 54E(3) is clear and sub-section 10B of section 155 was introduced to implement the relief provided by section 54E(3) as part of fiscal policy. Ultimately, the court answered the question in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, disposing of the reference case without costs. The judgment highlights the importance of interpreting tax provisions in a manner that aligns with legislative intent and ensures the effective implementation of beneficial provisions for taxpayers.
|
