Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 886 - AT - Income TaxValidity of order u/s 143(3) Jurisdiction of order is viod-ab-initio or not as it was not passed in the name of the deceased assessee Held that:- Shri Gopaldas Nema in whose name assessment has been made already died on 1.3.2009 - CIT(A) rightly took the view that it was duty of the legal heir of the assessee to bring the fact of the death to the notice of the AO along with the address of the legal heir with documentary proof of being a legal heir - from the assessment order, it appeared the return had been filed through e-filing by Shri Gopal Das - Even though the appeal before the CIT(A) has been filed in Form No. 35 by the legal heir on behalf of Late Shri Gopal Das - no evidence was brought to contradict this fact that the return was filed by the legal representative on behalf of Late Shri Gopal Das the order of the CT(A) is upheld Decided against assessee. Denial of exemption u/s 54EC Investment made in REC bonds on 31.03.2008 - investment made before the date of transfer of the property or not Held that:- Although the wording in the section are similar to the provisions of Section 54EC that the investment in the specified assets has to be made within period of six months after the date of such transfer but the Board has clearly laid down in the circular under para (2) that in its option it is felt that if statutory interpretation is taken that the investment has to be made after the date of transfer, this interpretation would go against the purpose and spirit of the section - the Board have decided that if the assessee invests the earnest money on the advance received in the specified assets before the date of the transfer of the assets, the amount so invested will qualify for exemption u/s 54E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - it is apparent that each of the assessee has invested into the REC Bond even though prior to the transfer but out of the part of the consideration received on the sale of the assets in respect of which the capital gain has been assessed similar matter has been decided in SUBHASH VINAYAK SUPNEKAR Versus ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2, PUNE [2013 (9) TMI 2 - ITAT PUNE] - the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the AO is directed to allow deduction to all the assessees u/s 54EC Decided in favour of assessee.
|