9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of six months. The assessee should be granted the benefit of deduction and the same has been wrongly denied to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.7548/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 28-8-2015 - SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Dr. K. Shivaram, (AR) For The Revenue : Shri Vijay Kumar Soni (DR) ORDER PER ASHWANI TANEJA, A.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against order dated 18.10.2012, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 34, Mumbai for the assessment year 2005-06. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Ld. CITCA) erred in holding that the Assessee is not eligible for exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cated at Prateek Apartment, Panchpakhadi, Thane for ₹ 18,50,000/-. After indexation, the assessee earned long term capital gain of ₹ 10,90,176/-. The assessee invested this capital gain in NHB Capital Gain Bonds 2006 on 31st December, 2004 and claimed exemption u/s 54EC. 3. However, the AO found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54EC, since the investment in acquiring NHB Capital Gain Bonds was not made by the assessee within six months from the date of transfer of original asset, as per requirement of section 54EC. The AO observed that the sale of row house (i.e. original asset) was executed on 27.04.2004, as per the registered sale agreement, whereas the assessee has invested the amount in NHB Bonds on 31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee had complied with the requirement of section 54EC by making investment within the stipulated period of six months and therefore, the assessee should be given the benefit of section 54EC. The Ld. Counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Tribunal in the case of M/s. Crucible Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5994/Mum/2013 dated 25.02.2015 and upon the latest decision of Special Bench of Ahmadabad bench in the case of Alkaben B. Patel (2014) 148 ITD 31 (Ahd). The reliance was also placed by the Ld. Counsel on the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ogale Glass Works Ltd. (1954) 25 ITR 529 (SC), wherein it was held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that in the case of the cheques not having b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not 180 days. The observations of the Special Bench are as under: 5.6 In certain other context few Hon'ble High Courts have also taken a view that a month is to be reckoned according british calendar . We have noted that in the case of CIT v. SLM Manekial Industries Ltd. [20051 274 ITR 485/[2007] 158 Taxman 30 (Guj.), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has opined that the issue of interpretation of the term month is no longer res integra because in the case of CIT v. Kadri Mills (Coimbatore Ltd.), 106 ITR 846 (Mad.') it was laid down that the month to be reckoned according to British calendar. The issue before the Hon'ble Court was that whether the 4 ITA NO.5994/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2010-11) Tribunal was right in law a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is upheld. 7. Further, Hon ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Ogale Glass Works Ltd. (supra) that the cheques not having been dishonored but having been cashed, the payment relates back to the dates of the receipt of the cheques and as per law the dates of payments would be the date of delivery of the cheques. Now, if we notice from the facts on record, the assessee had filed an application with National Housing Bank on 23.12.2004 and submitted along with this application Cheque No.669766 drawn on bank of India, Mulund Branch Mumbai, dated 23.12.2004. This fact has not been disputed by the Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue. Thus, assessee has clearly made the investment within the period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
