9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the exemption under Section 54EC in the different financial year if he had already made the investment in the financial year in which the capital asset is transferred. In our opinion, the language of Section 54EC is clear and unambiguous and it leads to the interpretation that the assessee can make the investment in two different financial years provided in a financial year the investment made did not exceed ₹ 50,00,000/-. Also gone through the circular no. 3/2008 dtd. 12.3.2008 issued by the CBDT being an explanatory note on the provisions relating to direct taxes in Finance Act, 2007 , it is apparent that the Government only intended to restrict the investment in a particular financial year and accordingly has fixed the limit of ₹ 50,00,000/- as permissible limit in a particular financial year. The Government did not intend to restrict the maximum amount of exemption permissible under Section 54EC. Legislature in our opinion has consciously used the words “in a financial year” in the proviso to Sec. 54EC of the Act. If the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee is in appeal before us. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the same. We noted that this issue is duly covered in favour of the Assessee by the decision of the Bangalore Bench in case of Vivek Jairazbhoy Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, ITA No. 236/Bang/2012 and Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Aspi Ginwala, Shree Ram Engg. Mfg. Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, 20 taxmann.com 75 (Ahd.). In the case of Aspi Ginwala, the co-ordinate bench has held as under: - 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records and find that the assessee and his brother Shri Rustom Ginwala sold a property on 22-10-2007 for ₹ 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 lowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 Laboratory Ltd. v. Dy. CIT[2004] 266 ITR 521 /135 Taxman 594 (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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he fact that the assessee was not at fault in not depositing the amount before 31-8- 1995, we hold that the deposit made on 1-9-1995 satisfies the condition laid down in section 54F of the Act. Since no contrary decision was cited on behalf of the Revenue, we are left with no option but to hold that the investments made by the assessee on 26-05-2008 beyond six months is eligible for exemption in view of the fact that no subscription for eligible investment was available to the assessee from 1st April, 2008 to 26-05- 2008. 10. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. 4. We have also noted that subsequently, a contrary view has been taken by Jaipur 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 dated 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e limit of ₹ 50,00,000/- as permissible limit in a particular financial year. The Government did not intend to restrict the maximum amount of exemption permissible under Section 54EC. Legislature in our opinion has consciously used the words in a financial year in the proviso to Sec. 54EC of the Act. If the legislature wanted to restrict the exemption itself to ₹ 50,00,000/-, it could have have simply dispensed with using the words in a financial year . The Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the case of Vikrant Tyres Ltd. Vs. First ITO, 274 ITR 821 laid down law of interpretation of the statute by holding therein as under : It is settled principle of law that the courts while construing Revenue Acts have to give a fair and reasonable construction 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. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
