TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvestment made by an assessee in the long-term specified asset, from capital gains arising from transfer of one or more original assets, 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. We find that this amendment is not applicable in this assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2008-09, therefore, ld. CIT(A) is justified in passing the impugned order. Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 333/PNJ/2014 And ITA No. 334/PNJ/2014 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2015 - Shri P. K. Babnsal, And Shri D.T. Garasia JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Chinmay S. Kamat For the Respondent : Shri B. Balakrishna - D.R. ORDER Per D.T. Garasia, JM These two appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Portuguese Civil Code. Perusal of details revealed that the assessee had share in the consideration of long term capital gain asset that was transferred on 07/03/2008. The assessee claimed exemption from the LTCG u/s. 54EC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for short) to the extent of ₹ 70,00,000/-. The bond certificates ofRural Electrification Corporation Ltd. amounting to ₹ 10,00,000/- and ₹ 50,00,000/- were subscribed by the assessee on 13/03/2008 and 30/06/2008. In view of the proviso to sec. 54EC(1) of the Act, the assessee was asked as to why ₹ 50 Lac. investment made in the succeeding financial year should not be disallowed. In response, the assessee submitted in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Total capital gain 1,34,01,626 Out of the above total capital gain, the assessee s share is ₹ 67,00,813/- (being half of the total capital gain u/s. 5A). The intention to the insertion of new proviso to sec. 54EC(1) of the Act as follows:- It is also proposed to amend the said section so as to provide for a ceiling on investment by an assessee in such long term specified assets. Investment in such specified assets to avail exemption u/s. 54EC, on or after 1st day of April, 2007 will not exceed fifty lakh rupees in a financial year. This amendment shall take effect from 1st April, 2007. In the instant case, the assessee has invested only ₹ 10 Lac. in the long term specified asset in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and made the addition of ₹ 50 lakhs. On appeal, the commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. On further appeal, the jurisdictional ITAT, held as under: The plain reading of section S4EC(1) as well as the proviso thereto clearly suggests that the limit of ₹ 50 lakhs as given under the proviso is per person per financial ye. There is no ambiguity in the interpretation. Had there been an intention of the legislature to restrict the exemption to ₹ 5O lakhs, the legislature would have provided the embargo in this regard. Restriction relates only to the investment made in any financial year by the assessee. Making of the investment is a condition for availing of the exemption. Condit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. [Para 5] Since the facts of the instant case is identical to the case discussed above, the AC. is directed to delete the addition and allow credit for ₹ 50 lakhs, invested in REC Bonds on 30.06.2008. This ground of appeal of the appellant is allowed accordingly. 5. Since the assessee is govered by S.5A of the I.T. Act and issues are also identical, this order shall be applicable in the case of the spouse Mr. Carmo Gracias as well. In this result, the both appeals are partly allowed. 5. We have heard rival contention of both the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the issue in controversy is covered by the decision of ITAT Panaji Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
