TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to ₹ 50,00,000/- is incorporated in Section 54EC(1) of the Act itself. However, the ambiguity has been removed by the legislature with effect from 1.4.2015 in relation to the assessment year 2015-16 and the subsequent years. Also see case of Dr. Kumar M. Dhawale [2015 (2) TMI 624 - ITAT MUMBAI]. Thus no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for allowing further claim of exemption in respect of investment made in subsequent financial year amounting to ₹ 50 lakhs u/s.54EC of the I.T.Act. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 6987/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2015 - D. Manmohan, VP And R. C. Sharma, AM,JJ. For the Appellant : Ms. Vandana Sagar For the Respondent : Shri Bhupendra Shah ORDER Per R. C. Sharma ( A. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent order on page 2 '3 where it has been stated that Provided that the investment made on or after 1st day of April 2007 in the long term specified asset by an assessee during any financial year does not exceed ₹ 50 lacs. The AO further stated that the case of the assessee is not the same as that of the appellant has relied upon and further confirmed in the, form of the following tabular:- Capital gain arose in F.Y.2009-10 Date of sale of investment 22/3/2010 Date of investment in REC Bond 29/3/2010 F.Y.over by 31/3/2010 Capital gain put to tax in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar. 2.3.1 I find that similar issue arose for consideration of the Hon ble Ahmadabad Bench in the case of Aspi Ginwala, Shree Ram Engg. Mfg. Industries vs. ACIT reported in 52 SOT 16,(2012) wherein the facts were that the appellant sold a house property on 22/10/2007' for ₹ 6.21 crores. The appellant had 50% share in that property. The appellant made an investment of ₹ 50 lakhs on 31/12/2008 in REC Bonds and ₹ 50 lakhs on 26/512008 in NHAI Bonds and claimed exemption of ₹ 1 crore u/s. 50EC. The investment in REC Bond was within time limit of six months prescribed in section 54EC of the Act and claimed Long Term Capital Gain of ₹ 100 lakhs. The Assessing Officer disallowed the capital gain of ₹ 50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und of appeal is, thus allowed. 5. We have considered rival contentions and found that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Jaichander, 370 ITR 0579, wherein the Hon ble High Court held as under :- On a plain reading of the above said provision, we are of the view that Section 54EC(l) of the Act restricts the time limit for the period of investment after the property has been sold to six months. There is no cap on the investment to be made in bonds. The first proviso to Section 54EC(l) of the Act specifies the quantum of investment and it states that the investment so made on or after 1.4.2007 in the long-term specified asset by an assessee during any financial year does not exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uent years 6. Similar issue has been decided by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee in the case of Dr. Kumar M. Dhawale, ITA No.7585/Mum/2012, order dated 9-1-2015 for the A.Y.2009-2010. 7. In view of the above discussion, respectfully following the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Jaichander (supra), as well as decision of coordinate bench in the case of Dr. Kumar M. Dhawale (supra), we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for allowing further claim of exemption in respect of investment made in subsequent financial year amounting to ₹ 50 lakhs u/s.54EC of the I.T.Act. 8. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
