9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06.08 and reinvestment of the corresponding capital gains on 17.12.08 only. We therefore adopt the reasoning Alkaben B. Patel [ 2014 (3) TMI 842 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] mutatis mutandis and hold that the assessee s impugned reinvestment dated 28.04.14 after receiving final amount of consideration on 01.11.13 as very well beyond six months and therefore, he is entitled for the impugned section 54EC deduction. PCIT s impugned revision action in the above-narrated facts and circumstances is not sustainable since the Assessing Officer s alleged failure in either or not examining the case or disallowing the above-stated deduction relief has not caused any prejudice to interest of the Revenue. His assumption of section 263 revision jurisdiction stands reversed therefore. AO s regular assessment herein stands revived as a necessary corollary. Coming to remaining eight assessees cases both the learned representatives are ad idem that the same also involve identical facts since they had received the sale consideration of painting(s) on more than one occasion containing different dates followed by reinvestment thereof in REC bonds on similar two dates only. More particularly qua the lat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered. He further explained that in case of the assessee, he made an agreement with the party (purchaser) on 07/08/2013 and received advance payment for Rs.90 lakh for sale of painting with a condition that the painting will be handed over only on receiving the full payment. A copy of the said agreement has also been filed by the Ld. AR along with its written submission. By quoting from said agreement, the Ld. AR has pointed out that it has also been agreed between the parties that sale of painting shall be completed only on payment of full prices of the painting and executing delivery of the painting. The balance payment of Rs.10 lakh was received on 19/10/2013 and the painting was handed over after that. Therefore, it has been argued by the Ld. AR that the sale was actually executed on 19/10/2013. It is further explained that the assessee made the first investment of Rs.50 lakh on 02/11/2013 and second investment of Rs.50 lakh was made on 28/04/2014. Then, it has been pointed out that both the investments were made within six months from the date of actual sale/handed over. In view of the Ld. AR, there is no error in allowing the deduction u/s.54EC of the Act. He further pointe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... months. 10.1 Even if, the argument of the Ld. AR about taking the date of transfer as 19/10/2013 is accepted, the investment made on 28/04/2014 is also beyond six months because the period of Six months in section 54EC is to be taken from the date of transfer, not from the end of the month in which transfer took place. Therefore, on counting six months from the date of transfer, it will end on 18/04/2014 and in no circumstances, six months can extend up to 28/04/2014. For justifying six months period being as Calendar month, the Ld. AR has argued in Para 8.7 of his written submission stating that the period mentioned in section 54EC is Calendar month and not the period of 180 days. In this regard, he has referred to a decision of ITAT, Spl. Bench, Ahmedabad. It is respectfully submitted that such interpretation is not as per the provision of the Act because wherever period is recorded from the end of the month, it has been mentioned in the respective provision of the Act. 10.2 However, in case of the assessee, there is no need of such interpretation because the sale of the assessee was completed on 07/08/2013 as per the sale bill, which now, the Ld. AR is trying to show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corresponding reinvestment of Rs.50,00,000/- each as on 01.11.13 and 28.04.14. Learned counsel then referred to the corresponding painting(s) sale agreement dated 07.08.13 and more particularly Clause 5 therein that the sale of the painting shall be complete only on payment of full price of the painting and successful delivery of painting . Learned counsel pleads that since the latter and final payment of Rs.10,00,000/- was received only on 19.10.13 and the assessee has reinvested the impugned sums for six months of the transfer, he is very much entitled for section 54EC deduction in question. 5. Learned CIT-DR draws vehement support from the PCIT s revision direction extracted hereinabove. He sought to emphasize that the Assessing Officer had not examined the instant issue of computation of correctness of assessee s section 54EC deduction claim during the course of scrutiny. And also that assessee s painting s sale agreement does not form part of assessment record as well. Mr. Sankar s argument is that this assessee has not reinvested his capital gains as well within six months from the date of transfer so as to be eligible for the impugned deduction. And that the PCIT has mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orm part of record. 8. Next comes the second issue between the parties about assessee s eligibility to claim section 54EC deduction after having reinvested his long-term capital gains in the specified REC bonds. We find that various judicial precedents Chachal Kumar Sircar vs ITO (2012) 18 taxmann.com 304(Kol), Mr. Lemes E. D Souza vs. ITO in 5802/Mum/2013 dated 10.04.2017, CIT vs. Janardhan Dass 170 Taxman 113 (Allahabad) S. Gopal Reddy vs. CIT 181 ITR 378 (AP) support the assessee s case that the specified time period of six months for reinvestment of capital gains u/s 54EC claim has to be reckoned from actual receipt of sale consideration only. We are of the view in above-stated factual backdrop that the assessee s reinvestment falls within six months from the date of transfer. He is entitled for the impugned section 54EC deduction. We make it clear that the legislature has amended section 54EC by inserting 2nd proviso to sub-section(1) of the Act by the Finance Act 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.15 restricting the reinvestment amount to a lumpsum of Rs.50,00,000/-; even if it involves more than one financial year, w.e.f 01.04.15 only without having retrospective effect. We wish to r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
