9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly claimed by the appellant. 1.3 The appellant therefore submits that deduction U/s. 54B of the Act, be allowed of Rs. 55,40,000/- as claimed in the return of income. 2.1 The id, CIT(Appeal) has erred in confirming deduction u/s.54EC to only Rs. 50, 00, 000/- as against claimed by assessee for Rs, 1,00,00,000/-. 2.2 The appellant respectfully submits that he has invested Rs. 50,00,000/- U/s. 54EC of the Act on 31.03.2007 and Rs. 50,00,000 on 07.12.2007. The appellant respectfully submits that the limit of investment U/s. 54EC of the Act is per financial year and therefore the appellant should be allowed both the above investments made by him U/s. 54EC 'of the Act. Further, the amendment in Sec.54EC of the Act limiting the investment of Rs. 50,00,000 per financial year was introduced only w.e.f. 01.04.2007 and therefore the said amendment cannot be applied to investment made on 31.03.2007. 2.3 The appellant therefore submits that deduction of Rs. 1, 00,00,000/-for investment made U/s. 54EC of the Act be allowed as against only Rs. 50, 00,000/- allowed by Id. CIT(Appeals). 3.1 That the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) enhancing the income of the assessee as assessed by Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nate Bench of the ITAT in the case of Balkrishna P. Trivedi vide ITA No. 1225/Ahd/2013, 997/Ahd/2016 and ITA 1229/Ahd/2016 dated 31-01-2020 and ITA No. 1226/Ahd/2013 & 651/Ahd/2016 in the case of Riddhish B Trivedi dated 17-01-2020 have decided the issue of allowability of deduction u/s. 54B of the Act against the assessee. 7. In the light of the observation made by the Co-ordinate Bench in the other co-owners case and decided the issue of allowability of deduction u/s. 54B of the Act against the assessee as cited above, the grounds of appeal 1.1 to 1.3 stand dismissed. Ground Nos. 2.1 to 2.3 pertaining to the issue of disallowance of Rs. 50 lacs claimed u/s. 54EC of the act 8. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, at the outset, the ld. counsel pointed out that identical issue on similar facts in the case of other co-owners Balkrishna T. Trivedi vide ITA No. 1225/Ahd/2013 is adjudicated in favour of the assessee. The ld. D.R. is fair enough not to controvert this fact that similar issue is adjudicated in favour of the assessee by Co-ordinate Bench in the above cited case. Relevant part of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the above cited case is reproduce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly. The learned A.R. has also relied on circular no.359 date 10.05.1983. The copy of circular is filled before me. Paragraph-2 of the above circular reads as under: "On consideration of the matter in consultation with Ministry of Law, it is felt that the foregoing interpretation would go against the purpose and spirit of the section. As the section contemplates investment of the net consideration in specified asset for a minimum period and as earnest money or advance is a part of sale consideration, the Board have decided that if the Assessee invest the earnest money or the advance received in specified asset before the date of transfer of asset, the amount so invested will qualify for exemption u/s. 54E of the Income Tax Act 1961." 7. The A.R. has therefore submitted that the investment can be made before the date of transfer and is eligible for exemption. Though the circular is issued for section 54E, the same should be applied to investment u/s. 54EC of the Act as the provisions of both the sections are same. It is further submitted that on perusal of provisions u/s. 54EC of the Act and circular it is clarified that the Appellant has fulfilled all the conditions of Section 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of the assessee, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee in ITA No. 651/Ahd/2016 order dated 17.01.2020. In parity, the issue is decided in favour of the assessee." Respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench on similar facts and identical issue in respect of co-owners, this ground of appeal is allowed. ITA No. 911/Ahd/2015 assessment year 2010-11 10. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- "1.1 That the order passed by id. CIT (A) in rejecting the claim of the appellant for deletion of Rs. 37,50,000/- from the income of the appellant is untenable in law. 1.2 That the various reasons advanced by the Ld. CIT(A) in rejecting the claim of the appellant are contrary to the facts of the case and evidence on record. 1.3 The appellant respectfully submits that his claim of deduction U/s. 54B of the Act is disallowed in AY 2008-09. The appellant has paid tax on Rs. 37,50,000/ being unutilized amount of claim U/s. 54B of the Act. When the entire claim of deduction U/s. 54B of the Act is disallowed in AY 2008- 1.4 The appellant therefore submits that his prayer for deletion of Rs. 37, 50,000/- from the income of the appellant be allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
