Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 2021 - ITAT AHMEDABADLTCG - Deduction in respect of investment in bonds - Excess claim of deduction u/s. 54EC - A.O. found that Rs. 50 lacs have been invested in bonds in two financial years - AO noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 54EC on sale of immovable properties to the tune of Rs. 1 crore and investment cannot exceed Rs. 50 lacs - Assesee as brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A) that the Finance Bill, 2014 has inserted second proviso but only with effect from 01.04.2015 and subsequent years and therefore not applicable for the year under consideration, thus deleted addition - HELD THAT:- D.R. could not bring any factual or legal error in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Aspin Ginwala and Shree Ram Engg. & Mfg. Industries [2012 (4) TMI 195 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] held that if the 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 under section 54EC. The language of the proviso is clear and unambiguous and so the appellant is entitled to get exemption upto Rs. 1 crore in this case;(ii) Though the time limit of 6 months for making the investment under section 54EC expired on 21.4.2008. no bonds were available for subscription between 1.4.2008 lo 28.5.2008. The investment was made as soon as the subscription opened on 26.5.2008. The appellant was accordingly prevented by sufficient cause which was beyond his control in making investment in these Bands within the time Prescribed. Exemption should be granted in cases where there is a delay in making investment due to non-availability of the bonds. Since the amendment brought in the statute is with effect from 01.04.2015 and is applicable on and from assessment year 2015-16, the same is not applicable on the facts of the year under consideration. We, therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Decided against revenue.
|