9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 79 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 54EC - addition of ₹ 50 lakhs by restricting the exemption u/s 54EC up to ₹ 50 lakhs out of total claim in respect of ₹ 1 Crore on investment in Bonds made within six months of sale of property in two different financial years amounting to ₹ 50 lakhs in each financial year - HELD THAT - As in terms of Section 54EC investment made in specified assets at any time within six months from the transfer of the original asset is entitled for deduction but the proviso to the section has restricted the investment during any financial year up to ₹ 50 lakhs only. Identical issue in dispute has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Akshay Sobti 2019 (5) TMI 851 - ITAT DELHI also TULIKA DEVI DAYAL (LEGAL HEIR) LATE MR. PREM A. DEVIDAYAL, C/O-DEVIDAYAL SALES LTD. VERSUS JCIT-17 (1) AND ACIT-20 (2) , MUMBAI 2018 (2) TMI 713 - ITAT MUMBAI allowed the deduction up to ₹ 50 Lakhs in two financial years. Respectively following the finding of the Tribunal, we set aside the finding of the learned CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under Section 54EC of the Act for ₹ 1 crores as claimed by the assessee. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are according allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee is entitled to a deduction of ?1 crore under Section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for investments made in two different financial years. 2. Interpretation of the proviso to Section 54EC regarding the limit of ?50 lakhs on investments in specified bonds within a financial year. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction under Section 54EC for Investments in Two Different Financial Years: The appellant filed a return of income declaring a total income of ?1,51,77,310/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and it was observed that the assessee sold a property resulting in a long-term capital gain of ?1,93,16,309/-. The assessee claimed a deduction of ?1 crore under Section 54EC by investing ?50 lakhs in REC Bonds in January 2013 and another ?50 lakhs in April 2013. The Assessing Officer (AO) restricted the exemption to ?50 lakhs, interpreting that the law limits the investment under Section 54EC to ?50 lakhs per financial year. The AO argued that allowing ?1 crore would lead to discrimination among taxpayers, as it would favor those who sell property between October and March over those who sell between April and September. The AO's decision was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who emphasized that the intention of the legislature was to restrict the exemption to ?50 lakhs per financial year to ensure equitable distribution among small investors. 2. Interpretation of the Proviso to Section 54EC: The CIT(A) reiterated that the proviso to Section 54EC(1) clearly limits the investment in specified bonds to ?50 lakhs per financial year. The CIT(A) argued that interpreting the provision to allow ?1 crore by spreading the investment over two financial years would vitiate the original intent of the legislature and lead to unequal treatment of taxpayers. The CIT(A) also referenced the explanatory notes of the Finance Act 2007, which aimed to impose a ceiling on the quantum of investment to ensure equitable distribution of benefits among prospective investors. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal considered the arguments and cited several cases where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction of ?1 crore by investing ?50 lakhs in two different financial years. Significant cases referenced include: - ACIT Vs. Akshay Sobti (2019) 106 taxmann.com 60 (Del-Trib.) - Tulika Devi Dayal Vs. JCIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 442 (Mum. –trib) - ACIT Vs. Shri Ajay Kaila (ITA No. 6907/Del/2015) The Tribunal noted that the proviso to Section 54EC, as it stood before the amendment effective from 01.04.2015, did not restrict the total investment to ?50 lakhs but rather limited the investment per financial year to ?50 lakhs. The Tribunal found that the assessee's interpretation was consistent with the legislative intent and judicial precedents, which allowed the benefit of ?1 crore when investments were made in two different financial years within six months of the transfer of the original asset. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s decision and directed the AO to allow the deduction under Section 54EC for ?1 crore as claimed by the assessee. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, affirming that investments made within six months from the transfer of the original asset, even if spread over two financial years, are entitled to the deduction under Section 54EC up to ?1 crore.
|
