9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 54 & 54F. Section 54EC clearly states that the investment in specified bond is to be made "within a period of six months after the date of such transfer …….." whereas in Section 54 and 54F which are adjacent to the Section 54EC, no such provision has been made - Since such specific words are not used in section 54EC, the intention of the legislature is clear and cannot be substituted with our own , the deduction u/s. 54EC for Rs. 50,000/- denied by the AO is correct and is upheld - against assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (wrongly mention in the assessment order as 31.05.2008). The REC Bond was purchased 2 and ½ months prior to the date of sale of property. The Assessing Officer observed that as per Section 54EC(1) where the capital gain arises from the transfer of long term capital assets and the assessee has, at any time within a period of six months after the date of such transfer, invested the whole or any part of capital gains in the long term specified assets, he shall be eligible for the claim of exemption as per Section 54EC. Since the investment was made before the date of transfer, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of exemption u/s 54EC of Rs. 50 lakh. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of A.O., the assessee filed second appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on from capital gain, the legislature has used specific words, to provide that investment could be made before the date of transfer too as under:- ".....the assessee has within a period of years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed a residential house, then….." Since such specific words are not used in section 54EC, the intention of the legislature is clear and cannot be substituted with our own. Further, the case laws cited by the Authorized Representative all relate to section 54 & 54F, where the scheme of investment horizon is different. These case laws do not apply to the present case. Hence, the deduction u/s. 54EC for Rs. 50,000/- denie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emption u/s. 54EC - Investment made prior to the date of transfer out of advance received - eligible IAC v. Jayantilal C. Patel (HUF) [1988] 26 ITD 1 (Ahd.) For claim of exemption u/s. 54E - Source of investment of fund is immaterial. General: (a) Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188/62 Taxman 480 (SC) Beneficial and incentive provisions to be interpreted liberally CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC) (b) CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1992] 196 ITR 149/62 Taxman 471 (SC) Where taxing provision is ambiguous and reasonably capable of more than one interpretation, that interpretation which is beneficial to the assessee has to be accepted. CIT v. Shahzada Nand & Sons [1966] 60 ITR 392 (SC) CIT v. Nag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow and gone through the submission and case law which were squarely not applicable on Section 54EC. Section 54EC clearly states that the investment in specified bond is to be made "within a period of six months after the date of such transfer …….." …. In Section 54 and 54F which are adjacent to the Section 54EC, no such provision has been made. The Section 54 and 54F has specified word which is reproduced as under: "The assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, a residential house, then..." Whereas in Section 54EC :- "The assessee has at any time within a period of six mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
