9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Income Tax (Intl. Taxation), Vadodara for the Assessment Year 2011-12 with the following grounds: "1. Comm. of Income Tax (A)-13, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the CITA) has erred both on facts and in Law in confirming order of AO confining deduction u/s 54EC to Rs. 50 Lacs instead of the same correctly claimed at Rs. 1 Crore. 2. It is submitted that since the Appellant has complied with provisions of Section 54EC as interpreted by different Hon. Courts and since investment in bonds is made in two separate financial years but within six months from sale of property, deduction of Rs. 1 crore ought to have been granted u/s 54EC." 2. The case of the assessee, a non-resident, for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ands of the assessee out of which,Rs.22,49,455/- was claimed to have been invested in the residential flat on 03.11.2010 and sought the benefit of section 54 of the Act. Apart from that Rs. 50 lacs was deposited in NHAI bonds on 30.11.2010 by the assessee and claimed deduction u/s 54EC of the Act. Further an amount of Rs. 50 lacs was also deposited in NHAI bonds on 13.04.2011 upon which further benefit u/s 54EC of the Act was claimed. It was the case of the assessee that the investment made in NHAI bonds were within six months on the sale of the property and therefore the assessee was entitled to get deduction of the entire investment of Rs. 1 crore u/s 54EC. The Learned AO observed that in terms of the Financial Act, 2014 all ambiguity in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the second proviso to section 54EC(1) of the Act introduced by Financial Act (Act no.2) 2014 w.e.f 07.04.2015 does not have retrospective effect and therefore, not applicable to the case of the appellant. He therefore prayed for the same relief before us. On the contrary, the Learned DR relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 5. Heard the respective parties, perused the relevant materials available on record. We have also carefully considered the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No.2291/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2011-12; the relevant paragraph whereof is as follows: "2. Learned representatives fairly agree that the grievances in the appeal are covered, in favour of the assessee, by a decision of the coordinate bench in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration. We therefore reject Mr. Kabra's vehement contentions supporting the impugned disallowance. The assessee's sole substantive ground is accepted." 6. Applying the ratio laid down in the above judgment it can be concluded that when the case of the assessee was reopened on 14.03.2014, this amendment was not in existence and therefore restrictions imposed by statue under first proviso of section 54EC of the Act will not be applicable here. Thus we find substance in the argument advanced by the Ld. AR. Taking into consideration the order passed by the Learned Tribunal we are of the view that the assessee is entitled to exemption on the investment made of Rs. 50 lacs in NHAL bond on 13.04.2011 for long term capital gain since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
