TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee in making investments of ₹ 50 lakhs each in two different financial years is therefore not out of sync with these judicial precedents. Hence, there is an apparent plausibility in the action of the Assessing Officer in accepting the claim of ₹ 1 crore under section 54EC. Thus, the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting a view expressed by the superior forum cannot be viewed as arbitrary or unreasonable. The issue involved is pre-dominantly legal in nature and does not require any factual enquiry. On objective consideration of the facts on record, it is difficult to hold that action of the Assessing Officer was erroneous per se and hostile to the interest of the Revenue. Thus, source of power to set-aside the assessment or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ject assessment order framed under section 143(3) is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the assessment under section 143(3) for the assessment year 2010-11 was completed by the Assessing Officer determining the total income of ₹ 15,81,92,480/- on 30.03.2013. Thereafter, the Commissioner in exercise of its revisionary power, issued notice under section 263 of the Act dated 20.09.2014 requiring the assessee to show-cause as to why the assessment so framed under section 143(3) should not be set-aside or modified. It was alleged by the Commissioner that examination of records revealed that assessment order so passed is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter the date of transfer of capital asset. The investment in one financial year does not exceed ₹ 50 lakhs. Therefore, there was no error on the part of the assessee to claim exemption under section 54EC of ₹ 1 crore. Likewise, the action of the Assessing Officer in allowing the exemption is not erroneous and against the interests of the Revenue. For the proposition that investment of ₹ 50 lakhs each made in two different financial years within the stipulated period of six months under section 54EC is permissible, the assessee relied upon the decision of ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Smt. Shriram Indubhai vs. ITO, No.1950 (MSD) of 2012 dated 31.01.2013; ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Shri Vivek Jairazbhoy vs. DCIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee, Smt. Deepa Khare reiterated the aforementioned facts and submitted at the outset that in view of the several judicial precedents on the issue permitting investments of specified amount of ₹ 50 lakhs each in two different financial years, the action of the Assessing Officer in accepting the claim of deduction of ₹ 1 crore i.e. ₹ 50 lakhs each invested in two different financial years cannot be faulted. For the proposition that investment of ₹ 50 lakhs in long term specified asset in two different financial years is permissible for the purposes of section 54EC, she relied upon the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terests of the Revenue. We notice that there are several judicial precedents on the issue of allowability of exemption to the extent of ₹ 50 lakhs each in one or more financial years under section 54EC of the Act. The action of the assessee in making investments of ₹ 50 lakhs each in two different financial years is therefore not out of sync with these judicial precedents. Hence, there is an apparent plausibility in the action of the Assessing Officer in accepting the claim of ₹ 1 crore under section 54EC. Thus, the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting a view expressed by the superior forum cannot be viewed as arbitrary or unreasonable. The issue involved is pre-dominantly legal in nature and does not require any fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
