TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from the year in which the assessee’s father had become owner of the property. Accordingly, capital gain is to be computed. This ground is allowed. Capital gain bonds under sec.54EC - Held that:- In any event, from a reading of section 54EC(1) and the first proviso, it is clear that the time limit for investment is six months from the date of transfer and even if such investment falls under two financial years, the benefit claimed by the assessee cannot be denied. See CIT v. Jaichander [2014 (11) TMI 54 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - ITA No. 712/Mds/2016 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2016 - SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri S. Krishnan, FCA For The Respondent : Shri P. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record. Similar issue came for consideration before the Tribunal in the case of (Late) Mythri Grandhi v. ITO in ITA Nos. 407 408/Mds/2015 and 582/Mds/2016 and vide order dated 6.6.2016, it was held as under : 11. As per sec.49(1)(iii)(a) of the Act, whereas the capital asset became the property of the assessee by succession, inheritance or devolution, the cost of acquisition of the asset shall be deemed to be the cost for which the previous owner of the property acquired it, as increased by the cost of any improvement incurred by the previous owner of the assessee, as the case may be. For the purpose of computation of capital gains, the cost of asset should be revised upwards by applying the appropriate cost of inflation index. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capital asset which becomes the property of the assessee by way of succession, inheritance etc., the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner shall also be included. 13. It is also to be noted that in the case of DCIT v. Kishore Kanungo (102 ITD 437), the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal, held that indexation is to be allowed only from the year in which the assessee became the owner of the property. Contrary to this, Vishakhapatnam Bench in the case of M. Sivaparvathi Others v. ITO (7 ITR (Trib) 468) held that, the assessee having inheritant property purchased by the previous owner in the year 1974, the cost of acquisition for the purpose of computation of capital gains on the sale of such property had to be computed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsfer of capital asset acquired by the assessee under a gift, the indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with reference to the year in which the previous owner first held the asset and not the year in which the assessee becomes the owner of the capital asset. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the cost of indexation to be computed from the year in which the assessee s father had become owner of the property. Accordingly, capital gain is to be computed. This ground is allowed. 6. The next ground in this appeal is with regard to addition of ₹ 50 lakhs made in respect of investment made in capital gain bonds under sec.54EC of the Act by ignoring the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court be deleted. 7. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Legislature probably appears to be that this amendment should be for the assessment year 2015-16 to avoid unwanted litigations of the previous years. Even otherwise, we do not wish to read anything more into the first proviso to section 54EC(1) of the Act, as it stood in relation to the assessees. 11. In any event, from a reading of section 54EC(1) and the first proviso, it is clear that the time limit for investment is six months from the date of transfer and even if such investment falls under two financial years, the benefit claimed by the assessee cannot be denied. It would have made a difference, if the restriction on the investment in bonds to ₹ 50,00,000 is incorporated in section 54EC(1) of the Act itself. However, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
