Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1458 - AT - Income TaxDenial of exemption claimed u/s.54EC - investments in Electrification Corporation Bonds made on 28.02.2014 and 30.06.2014 were beyond the period allowed u/s.54EC - whether JDA was correctly taken as date of transfer by the lower authorities - Held that:- Handing over of the possession could happen only after the CMDA approval for the plan was received. Planning permit was given by the CMDA, only on 31.12.2013. Hence, possession could have been given by the assessee to the developer only after 31.12.2013. Even if, we presume the letter dated 03.02.2014 placed by the assessee at paper book page 42 and claimed as evidence for handing over of possession, as a document constructed by the assessee and the developer to help the assessee’s cause, still we are inclined to hold that the investments made by the assessee in the bonds were within six months outer limit mentioned in Section 54EC of the Act. Even if possession was given by the assessee on the very next day after getting the CMDA approval, viz, on 01.01.2014, the investments made on 28.02.2014 and 30.06.2014 were within six months period. By virtue of Section 2(47) (v) of the Act transfer is complete when the possession of immovable property is given in part performance falling within Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Coming to the question whether assessee could claim such exemption over investment done over two successive financial year, this stands answered by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Coromandel Industries Ltd [2014 (12) TMI 852 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] as upheld the view of this Tribunal that investments, even though they are made in two difference financial years, if they fall within six months period from the date of transfer, would be eligible for deduction under Section 54EC - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of additional cost of construction while computing the deduction claimed under Section 54 - Held that:- AO sought restriction of the additional claim of ₹ 12,21,086/- based on certain submissions given by M/s.Sumanth& Co. It appears that he did not verify whether the claim of the assessee was genuine. Ld. AO also did not verify whether there was any duplication of original claim of ₹ 3,18,75,000/- under Section 54 made in the return and the additional claim of ₹ 3,06,40,581/- made before ld. CIT(A). Once ld. CIT(A) admitted fresh evidence in our opinion ld. AO was duty bound to verify such evidence in accordance with law. Careful examination is required since the claim of additional construction, when aggregated with what was originally claimed by the assessee in the return appears prime facie to be disproportionate to the cost and the area. Even the original claim, it seems, was allowed without consider this aspect. We are therefore of the opinion that question whether assessee was eligible for claiming any relief for additional cost of construction and if so, to what extent requires a fresh look by the ld. AO - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
|