9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rounds have been taken by the respective assessees in all these appeals, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. ITA No. 286/PN/2013 (Ajitkumar Popatlal Shah) : 2. The only effective ground raised by the assessee reads as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not allowing deduction u/s.54EC of I.T. Act, 1961 to the tune of ₹ 50 lakhs as claimed by the assessee . 2.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 10-10-2011 disclosing income of ₹ 21,32,710/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has disclosed income from capital gains on transfer of land at Baramati. From the transfer document he noted that there are 3 co-owners viz., Ajitkumar Popatlal Shah, Kirankumar Popotlal Shah and Smt. Sarika Sanjaykumar Shah. The co-owners are from the same family and the total consideration involved in the transfer is ₹ 3,51,00,000/-. From the computation of total income of the assessee the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has claimed exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing deduction u/s.54EC the assessee can make investment in two different financial years provided that the investment made did not exceed ₹ 50 lakhs in a financial year. Referring to the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Vivek Jairazbhoy Vs. DCIT in ITA No.236/Bang/2012 order dated 14-12-2012 he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has also held that assessee is entitled to total deduction u/s.54EC of the Act spread over a period of 2 financial years @Rs.50 lakhs each on investments made in specified instruments within a period of 6 months from the date of sale of the property. He also relied on the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Aspi Ginwala Vs. ACIT vide ITA No.3226/Ahd/2011 order dated 30-03-2012 for A.Y. 2008-09 and the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Sriram Indubal Vs. ITO vide ITA No.1950/Mds/2012 order dated 30-01-2013 for A.Y. 2008-09 and M/s. Coromandel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT vide ITA No.411/Mds/2013 order dated 25-06-2013 for A.Y. 2009-10. Referring to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property on 22-10-2007for ₹ 6.21 Crores. The assessee and his brother had 50% share in this property. The assessee made investment of ₹ 50 lakhs on 31 12-2008 in REC Bonds and ₹ 50 lakhs on 26-05-2008 in NHAI Bonds and claimed exemption of ₹ 1 Crore u/s 54EC of the Act. The investment in REC Bonds was allowed by the AO as it was within the time limit of six months prescribed in section 54EC of the Act, while the investment in NHAI Bonds which was made only on 26-05- 2008 was not allowed as according to the lower authorities the assessee is only entitled for exemption u/s 54EC upto ₹ 50 lakhs only. The assessee's case, however, is that as per the proviso to section 54EC, investment made on or after 1st April, 2007 in the Long Term Specified Asset by an assessee during any financial year should not exceed ₹ 50 lakhs. The assessee's case is that since the property was sold on 22-10-2007 he could have invested in eligible investment within six months i.e. on or before 21-04-2008 in order to avail exemption u/s 54EC of the Act. There is no dispute about ₹ 50 lakhs invested on 31-122007 in REC Bonds. The dispute is only about furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding of the section is clear, then benefits which are not available cannot be conferred by ignoring or misinterpreting words in the section Here the situation is reverse. Since the wording of the proviso to section 54EC is clear, the benefits which are available to the assessee cannot be denied. In view of above, it is hereby held that the assessee is entitled for exemption of ₹ 1 crore as six months' period for investment in eligible investments involved is two financial years. 9. Now, coming to the second aspect of the matter, whether investment of ₹ 50 lakhs made in NHAI Bonds on 26-05-2008 can be considered to be made within six months period as per the proviso to sec. 54EC, we find that the assessee was to make investment in such Bonds between 01-04-2008 to 21-04-2008. There is no dispute about the fact that subscription of eligible Bonds was closed during this period till 26-05-2008 and on the 1st day of the reopening of the subscription, the assessee made this investment. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause which was beyond his control in making investment in these Bonds wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur bench in Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Raj Kumar Jain Sons (HUF), 19 taxmann.com 27 (Jp.). Subsequent to that decision, the Bangalore bench in the case of Vivek Jairazbhoy Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax vide order dtd. 14.12.2012 took view in favour of the assessee. From the provisions of Sec. 54EC we noted that the limit of ₹ 50,00,000/- as given under the proviso is per person per financial year. The plain reading of the section as well as the proviso clearly suggests the same interpretation. There is no ambiguity in the interpretation. Had there been an intention of the legislature to restrict the exemption to ₹ 50,00,000/-, the legislature would have provided the embargo in this regard. Restriction relates only to the investment made in any financial year by the assessee. Making of the investment is a condition for availing of the exemption. Condition for availing of the exemption requires that the investment can be made within a period of 6 months. If 6 months falls within a different financial year, as has happened in this case, in our opinion, this Tribunal cannot add the embargo that the assessee cannot make the investment to avail of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... truction to the language of a statute without leaning to one side or the other, meaning thereby that no tax or levy can be imposed on a subject by an Act of Parliament without the words of the statute clearly showing an intention to lay the burden on the subject. In this process, the courts must adhere to the words of the statute and the so called equitable construction of those words of the statute is not permissible. The task of the court is to construe the provisions of the taxing enactments according to the ordinary and natural meaning of the language used and then to apply that meaning to the facts of the case and in that process if the tax payer is brought within the net he is caught, otherwise he has to go free. Even in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd., 88 ITR 192 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken view that if there are two views possible, the view favourable to the subject should be taken. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the order of CIT(A) and CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. In the resu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
