9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1099X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave made a difference if the restriction on the investment in bonds to ₹ 50 lakhs is incorporated in section 54EC(1) of the Act itself. The ambiguity has been removed by the legislature wef 01-04- 2015 in relation to AY 2015-16 and subsequent years. In yet another case, the Hon’ble Madras High Court has taken a similar view and observed that before amendment to provisions of section 54EC(1) by the Second Proviso wef AY 2015-16 and subsequent years, the law is clear in respect of investment in 54EC and hence even if the assessee invests more than the prescribed amount in one financial year or two financial year, if such investment is within a period of six months from the date of sale as provided in section 54EC(1), then, the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income for AY 2011-12 on 31-03-2013 declaring total income of ₹ 1,76,70,960 and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) alongwith notice u/s 142(1) with a detailed questionnaire was duly served on the assessee. In response to notices, the authorised representative of the assessee appeared from time to time, furnished the details as called for. The assessment was duly completed u/s 143(3) on 28-02-2014 and determined the total income at ₹ 2,37,20,960 interalia making additions towards disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 54EC towards investment in tax exemption bonds and addition towards unreconciled difference in sale consideration. Aggrieved by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R on the other hand submitted that as per the provisions of section 54EC, assessee can invest only ₹ 50 lakhs. The AO has brought out clear facts that the assessee has made investment over and above ₹ 50 lakhs which has been restricted to ₹ 50 lakhs, therefore, there is no error in the findings of the AO and his order should be upheld. 5. We have heard both the parties and considered materials available on record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 54EC in respect of investment in tax exemption bonds of ₹ 50 lakhs in one financial year and further ₹ 50 lakhs invested in next financial year, but within the stipulated period of six months from the dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se. 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 l iberal 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 ciear, 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 exempt ion of ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee invests more than the prescribed amount in one financial year or two financial year, if such investment is within a period of six months from the date of sale as provided in section 54EC(1), then, the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 54EC. 7. In this view of the matter and considering the ratio of the case laws discussed above, we are of the view that the assessee is eligible for investment in tax exemption bond u/s 54EC for the entire amount if such investment is made within six months from the date of sale. Therefore, we direct the AO to allow exemption u/s 54EC to the total investment made by the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th Septembe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
