9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said investment is within the period of six months – Decided in favour of assessee. Addition of outstanding sundry creditors – Held that:- Assessee contended that ₹ 5,00,000/- was received as an advance for sale of shop at Pune - since the sale transaction did not materialize, therefore, the amount was offered to tax for A.Y. 2010-11 - except the submissions, no evidence has been produced by the assessee that the amount was received as an advance for sale of shop – also, when the amount was not repaid and finally offered by the assessee for the AY 2010-11, the assessee has failed to explain the cash credit to the extent of ₹ 5,00,000 – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 817/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 10-12-2014 - Shri Vijay Pal Rao And Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Vimal Punmiya For the Respondent : Shri Jeetendra Kumar ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.11.2012 of CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2008-09. The assessee has raised following grounds:- 1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for deduction to the extent of ₹ 50,00,000 each Financial Year if the investment is made within a period of six months from the date of sale of asset. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court dated 15.09.2014 in the case of CIT Vs. C. Jaichander in TCA no. 419 533 of 2014 and submitted that the Hon ble High Court has held that the provisions of section 54EC(1) mandates the time limit for investment as six months and the benefit that flows from the first proviso is available to the extent of ₹ 50 lac in any Financial year. Even if such investment falls under the two financial years, the benefit claimed by the assessee cannot be denied. The Hon'ble High Court after considering the latest amendment in the provisions w.e.f 1.4.2015 has confirmed the decision of Tribunal in allowing the deduction to the extent of ₹ 50 lac for each Financial year if the investment is made within a period of six months. He has also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Lilavati M. Sayani Vs. ITO [2014] 49 taxmann.com 579 (Mumbai - Trib.) and submitted that an identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is eligible for deduction of ₹ 1 crore under section 54EC, in respect of investment of ₹ 50 Lakhs made in two difference financial years.? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not referring the matter to the Special Bench under section 255(4), when there are conflicting views by different benches? 8. The Hon ble High Court while upholding the decision of Chennai Benches of this Tribunal held in para 7 as under:- 7. On a plain reading of the above said provision, we are of the view that Section 54EC(1) of the Act restricts the time limit for the period of I investment after the property has been sold to six months. There is no cap on the investment to be made in bonds. The first proviso to Section 54EC(1) of the Act specifies the quantum of investment and it states that the investment so made on or after 1.4.2007 in the long-term specified asset by an assessee during any financial year does not exceed fifty lakh rupees. In other words, as per the mandate of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15-16 and the subsequent years. 10. We note that the decision relied upon by the Ld. DR in the case of AREVA T D (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra), is on the point of constitutional validity of the notification no. 380 of 2006 dated 22.12.2006 vide which the Central Government has restricted the amount of investment in notified bonds to avail the benefit of exemption u/s 54EC. Therefore, the decision was not on the question of total exemption available to the assessee. Even otherwise the said notification become infructuous when the provisions of section 54EC were amended subsequently by Finance Act., 2007 and accordingly the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the notification. Therefore, the said decision is will not help the case of revenue. In the case of Mrs. Lilavati M. Sayani Vs. ITO (supra), the coordinate Bench of this Tribunla has decided an identical issue in para 5 as under:- 5. We have heard the arguments of both sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As submitted by learned counsel for the assessee, the issue involved in the appeal of the assessee is squarely covered by various decisions of the Tribunal. In one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jairazbhoy v. Dy. CIT (I.T. Appeal No. 236 (Bang.) of 2012, dated 14-12- 2012) wherein the Tribunal followed the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Aspi Ginwala, Shree Ram Engg. Mfg Industries (supra) keeping in view the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 3/2008, dated March 12, 2008 ([2008] 299 ITR (St.) 8) and the principles laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court. In our opinion, this issue thus is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions of the Tribunal as discussed above and respectfully following the same, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 54EC of the Act. Ground No. 2 is accordingly allowed. 11. In view of the Judgment of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. C. Jaichander Another (supra), we hold that as per the un amended provisions of section 54EC, the assessee is entitled for deduction of ₹ 1 crore, when the assessee has satisfied both the conditions of the investment in specified bonds of ₹ 50 lac in each Financial Year and the said investment is within the period of six months. 12. Ground No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
