TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act With the consent of the parties, we take up the appeal as well alongwith the stay petitions. 2. In the course of hearing, it is vehemently argued by the assessee that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) have wrongly restricted his claim of exemption u/s 54EC of the Act to the tune of ₹ 50 lakhs. By quoting case law of 2012-TIOL-204-ITAT-AHM Shri ASPI GINWALA vs ACIT, I.T.A.No.236/Bang/2012 Shri Vivek Jairazbhoy vs DCIT dated 14.12.2012 and I.T.A.No.1950/Mds/2012 Smt. Sriram Indubal vs ITO dated 31.1.2013, he prays for acceptance of the appeal. 3. In reply, the contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) has rightly affirmed the findings of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xemption of both the aforesaid investments of ₹ 50 lakhs each i.e totalling ₹ 1 crore u/s 54 EC of the Act. In support of the claim, hisplea was that he had made investments from sale prices on different dates within six months of executing the same i.e from the first sale deed executed on 21.6.2008, he had invested a sum of ₹ 50 lakhs on 30.11.2008. Coming to the latter sale deed executed on 4.3.2009, the assessee claimed to have made investment on 23.7.2009. Even the Revenue is fair enough not to dispute the aforesaid factual position. It is to be seen from the case file comprising assessment order dated 12.8.2011 that the Assessing Officer rejected the assessee s claim to the extent of ₹ 50 lakhs u/s 54EC of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since in neither of the financial year i.e 2008-09 or 2009-10, he has crossed the fiscal limit of ₹ 50 lakhs while making investments in the bonds mentioned hereinabove, his claim u/s 54EC could not have been restricted by the lower authorities. The Revenue strongly opposes the claim of the assessee. Proceeding on this question, we notice that the case law quoted by theassessee (supra) has held that in such a case, the benefit u/s 54EC could not be denied merely on the ground that investments of ₹ 50 lakhs have been made in two different financial years. So far as the case law quoted by the Revenue (supra) is concerned, we fairly observe that the same also contains identical circumstances wherein the very question stands decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
