9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... far as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised multiple Grounds of Appeal but the assessee in substance assails the action of the CIT(A) in invoking section 263 of the Act when the subject assessment order framed under section 143(3) is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the assessment under section 143(3) for the assessment year 2010-11 was completed by the Assessing Officer determining the total income of Rs. 15,81,92,480/- on 30.03.2013. Thereafter, the Commissioner in exercise of its revisionary power, issued notice under section 263 of the Act dated 20.09.2014 requiring the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n long term specified asset by an assessee during any financial year does not exceed fifty lakhs rupees. The assessee submitted that staggered investment of Rs. 50 lakhs each were made in different financial years within the period of six months after the date of transfer of capital asset. The investment in one financial year does not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, there was no error on the part of the assessee to claim exemption under section 54EC of Rs. 1 crore. Likewise, the action of the Assessing Officer in allowing the exemption is not erroneous and against the interests of the Revenue. For the proposition that investment of Rs. 50 lakhs each made in two different financial years within the stipulated period of six months under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 143(3) with directions to re-frame the assessment after proper enquiries on the aforesaid issue. Aggrieved by the aforesaid revisionary order of the Commissioner under section 263, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee, Smt. Deepa Khare reiterated the aforementioned facts and submitted at the outset that in view of the several judicial precedents on the issue permitting investments of specified amount of Rs. 50 lakhs each in two different financial years, the action of the Assessing Officer in accepting the claim of deduction of Rs. 1 crore i.e. Rs. 50 lakhs each invested in two different financial years cannot be faulted. For the proposition that investm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the order of the Assessing Officer in granting exemption under section 54EC to the extent of Rs. 1 crore is without any enquiry and therefore erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. We notice that there are several judicial precedents on the issue of allowability of exemption to the extent of Rs. 50 lakhs each in one or more financial years under section 54EC of the Act. The action of the assessee in making investments of Rs. 50 lakhs each in two different financial years is therefore not out of sync with these judicial precedents. Hence, there is an apparent plausibility in the action of the Assessing Officer in accepting the claim of Rs. 1 crore under section 54EC. Thus, the action of the Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
