9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1084X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .10.2009 and therefore date of investment being 08.04.2010 shall fall beyond the period of six months, whereas the assessee says that the six months period should be reckoned from the date 10.10.2009 which is actual date of transfer of original asset and if it is so done then the investment made on 08.04.2010 shall fall within the stipulated period of six months. In view of all these facts, ascertaining correct date of transfer becomes crucial. In view of these circumstances, we send this issue back to the file of the AO who shall give adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to submit requisite details and documents as may be considered appropriate by the assessee which shall be objectively taken into account by the AO to decide thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o controvert or contradict the factum of making investment in the Flat at the time of filing of return for the impugned year in which deduction u/s 54F was claimed in accordance with law. Thus addition has been wrongly made by the lower authorities - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA NO.6182/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 15-6-2016 - Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member For The Assessee : Shri Bharat P. Shah Shri Pathik B. Shah (AR) For The Revenue : Shri Vivekanand Ojha (DR) ORDER Per Ashwani Taneja (Accountant Member): This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai- 34 {(in short CIT(A) }, dated 31.7.2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e residential house under construction is required to be acquired in three years. 3. The appellant craves leave to add amend and/or after any of the above grounds of appeal. 2. During the course of hearing, arguments were made by Shri Bharat P. Shah Shri Pathik B. Shah, Authorised Representative (AR) on behalf of the Assessee and by Shri Vivekanand Ojha, Departmental Representative (DR) on behalf of the Revenue. 3. Ground No.1: This ground relates to disallowance of ₹ 50,00,000/- u/s 54EC out of aggregate investment of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- in two different financial years, for ₹ 50,00,000/- in each year. In this regard, it is noted that assessee had made deduction u/s 54EC on account of investment within six ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of investment being 08.04.2010 shall fall beyond the period of six months, whereas the assessee says that the six months period should be reckoned from the date 10.10.2009 which is actual date of transfer of original asset and if it is so done then the investment made on 08.04.2010 shall fall within the stipulated period of six months. In view of all these facts, ascertaining correct date of transfer becomes crucial. In view of these circumstances, we send this issue back to the file of the AO who shall give adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to submit requisite details and documents as may be considered appropriate by the assessee which shall be objectively taken into account by the AO to decide this issue afresh. The asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 50 lakhs each in two different financial years and is able to claim exemption upto ₹ 1 Crore u/s 54EC of the Act. Since the language of the proviso is clear and unambiguous, we have no hesitation in holding that the assessee is entitled to get exemption upto ₹ 1 Crore in this case. This view of ours gets support from the following finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of IPCA LAB 266 ITR 521 (SC), wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even though a liberal interpretation has to be given to such a provision the interpretation has to be as per the wording of the section. If the wording of the section is clear, then benefits which are not available cannot be conferred by ignori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpleted by the builder, therefore, this transaction was cancelled and resultantly the assessee offered the corresponding income in A.Y. 2013-14, and for confirming this fact copy of income tax return was filed before us. 4.2. Per contra, the Ld. DR stated that in case the income has already been offered by the assessee, then this issue can to be decided on merits. 4.3. We have gone through the facts of the case and find that assessee had duly made investment in the Flat which was under construction. The facts in this regard are not under dispute. The completion of construction was not in control of the assessee. Since the construction of flat could not be completed, therefore, corresponding income as stipulated in section 54F was offe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
