9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 54EC(1) of the Act with effect from 01.04.2015. Further, the above amendment was considered in the case of Aspi Ginwala and Shree Ram Engg. Mfg [ 2012 (4) TMI 195 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] the above decisions are also extracted in his order passed by Ld.CIT(A) at parahraph 4.3. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), therefore, the ground raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. - Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Dhinal Shah, AR For the Revenue : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr-DR ORDER PER T.R SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER :- These cross appeals are filed by the Assessee and the Revenue as against the appellate order dated 05.03.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-10, Ahmedabad arising out of the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual deriving income from business and capital gain. For the Asst. Year 2011-12, the assessee filed his Return of Income wherein a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... There is no cap on the investment to be made in bonds. The first proviso to Section 54EC(1) of the Act specifies the quantum of investment and it states that the investment so made on or after 01/04/2007 in the long-term specified asset by an appellant during any financial year does not exceed fifty lakh rupees. In other words, as per the mandate of Section 54EC(1) of the Act, the time limit for investment is six months and the benefit that flows from the first proviso is that if the appellant makes the investment of Rs. 50,00,000/- in any financial year, it would have the benefit of Section 54EC(1) of the Act. I agree with the argument of the AR. that it is clear and unambiguous from the language of the above proviso that where appellant transfers his capital asset after 30th September of the financial year he gets an opportunity to make an investment of Rs. 50 lakhs each in two different financial years and is able to claim exemption upto Rs. 1 Crore u/s 54EC of the Act. Thus, the proviso to the said Section as applicable for the year under consideration Le. A.Y. 2011-12 and upto A.Y.2012-13 mentions Any Financial Year and not the Relevant Financial Year 4.2 In order to remove a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wo years ie., one within the year and second in the next year but before the expiry of six months. This resulted in the claim for relief of one crore rupees as against the intended limit for relief of fifty lakhs rupees Accordingly, it is proposed to insert a proviso in sub-section (1) so as to provide that the investment made by an appellant in the long-term specified asset, out of capital gains arising from transfer of one or more original asset, during the financial year in which the original asset or assets are transferred and in the subsequent financial year does not exceed fifty lakh rupees. This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2015 and will, accordingly. apply in relation to assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent assessment years. 4.3 In view of the Notes on Clauses Finance Bill 2014 and the Memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014 as reproduced herein above, I have no doubt that the legislature has chosen to remove the ambiguity in the proviso to Section 54EC(1) of the Act by inserting a second proviso but only w.e.f. 01/04/2015 and subsequent years and not retrospectively. I find support from decisions rendered by various courts of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g investment due to non availability of the bonds. The above position is reiterated and confirmed by various other courts of law as under: CIT Vs. C. Jaichander(2015) 370 ITR 579/229 Taxman 10 (Mad.)(HC) CIT. Vs.Snram Indubai (2015) 370 ITR 579 (Mad.) (HC) CIT Vs.Coromandel Industries Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 586/230 Taxman 548 (Mad) (HC) Mrs. LilavatiSayani us. ITO (2014) 49 taxmann.com 579 (Mumbai - Trib.) ITO Vs. Rania Faleiro (Ms.) (2013) 142 ITD 769 (Panji) (Trib.) Thus, in view of the above facts and overwhelming position of law coupled with the clear legislative intention to insert the second proviso to Section 54EC only wef 01/04/2015 Le. A.Y. 2015-16 and subsequent years restricting the maximum investment of Rs. 50 lakhs irrespective of financial year, I am of the opinion that from a plain reading of Section 54EC(1) and the first proviso as applicable for the year under consideration ie. A.Y.2011-12, it is clear that prior to insertion of the Second Proviso to Section 54EC w.e.f. 01/04/2015 applicable to A.Y.2015-16 and subsequent years, the time limit for investment is six months from the date of transfer and even if such investment falls under two financial years, the benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fect from 01.04.2015 onwards, which is applicable prospectively. It is undisputed fact that the investments made by the assessee in REC Bonds on 31.03.2010, 08.04.2010 and 21.07.2010 for Rs. 50,00,000/- each which are much before the insertion of 2nd proviso to section 54EC(1) of the Act with effect from 01.04.2015. Further, the above amendment was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Aspi Ginwala and Shree Ram Engg. Mfg. V/s ACIT, the above decisions are also extracted in his order passed by Ld.CIT(A) at parahraph 4.3. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), therefore, the ground raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 6.1 In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.822/Ahd/2019 is hereby dismissed. 7. Now coming to the ITA No.949/Ahd/2023, appeal filed by the assessee and Grounds of appeal are as follows: ...The learned CIT(A) has erred in restricting the deduction upto Rs. 50,00,000 and confirming the addition of Rs. 44,90,000 under Section 54EC in as much as the assessee had received advances amount of more than Rs. 44,90,000 prior to investment of Rs. 50,00,000 on 21-07-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. 05.03.2019 Ld.CIT(A) given partial relief to the assessee. 6. 14.08.2019 ITA No.822/Ahd/2019 filed by the Revenue was dismissed on the ground of Low Tax Effect. 7. 11.03.2020 MA No.380/Ahd/2019 filed by the Revenue was also dismissed by the ITAT. 8. 2021 The Revenue has challenged this Batch of MA's before High Court of Gujarat by filing Writ Petition. 9. 08.08.2022 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has remitted the matter back to the file of ITAT to decide the appeals on merits. 10. 28.11.2023 Present Appeal filed by the assessee with a delay of 1654 days. 10. From perusal of the above list of dates and events, the original appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as earlier in August 2019 by this Tribunal and M.A filed by the Revenue was also dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal. The same was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat by filing the Writ Petition and vide judgment dated 08.07.2022, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court remitted the matter back to the this Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. It is thereafter, the present appeal is filed by the assessee on 28.11.2023. It is seen that the assessee was not a party in the proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
