9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin 6 months from the transfer of the capital asset. We delete the addition made by the authorities below. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.1274/Ahd/2017 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2019 - Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Ms. Kinjal Shah, A.R. For the Respondent : Ms. Nilam Das Gupta, Sr.D.R. ORDER PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 29.10.2015passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Ahmedabad under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act )arising out of the order dated 26.12.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Intl. Taxa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounting to ₹ 1 crore u/s 54EC of the Act whereas as per Section 54EC since the maximum permissible amount of deduction is ₹ 50 lacs. Thus, there was an excess claim of deduction u/s 54EC of the Act, made by the assessee. 3. The fact, behind this is that the assessee during the year under consideration sold an ancestral bunglow namely Swashraya being a co owner thereof having 1/3rd share of the said property for a consideration of ₹ 6,60,00,000/- on 26.10.2010. As a result whereof ₹ 2,20,00,000/- being 1/3rd of the share was received by the assessee. Since the bunglow was constructed by his father of 1981 taking the benefit of appropriate indexation, the long term capital gain was worked out at ₹ 1,77,08, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Learned AO was confirmed against which the instant appeal before us. 4. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal the Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that similar issue relating to the dispute regarding the claim of entire ₹ 1 lac u/s 54EC as raised by the assessee has already been dealt with by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No.2291/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2011-12 in favour of the assessee relying upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No.3603/Ahd/2015. The Learned AO further submitted that the Ld. Tribunal was pleased to hold that deduction claim of ₹ 50 lacs each though spread over to two financial years since falling within 6 months of the capital asset s transfer in ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . They therefore restrict assessee's claim to ₹ 50lacs to disallow the remaining equal amount. We find no force in this approach. Hon'ble Madras high court's judgment in CIT vs. C. Jaichander (2015) 370 ITR 579 (Madras) has admittedly upheld a co-ordinate bench's decision that such a deduction claim of ₹ 50 lacs each spread over to two financial years but falling within six months of the capital asset's transfer in question is very much allowable. We further take not of the fact that the legislature has inserted second proviso to Section 54EC (1) introducing the above cap on re-investment quantum by the Finance (Act No.2), 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015 whereas we are dealing with assessment year 2011-12. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
