TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 835X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 2) The CIT is not entitled to direct the AO to re-frame the assessment to restrict the exemption u/s 54EC to ₹ 50,00,000/- instead of ₹ 90,00,000/-. 3) While the first appeal from the order u/s 143(3) is pending before the Learned CIT(Appeals), Panaji who has powers and discretion, in appropriate cases to enhance the assessment if found necessary, there is no occasion for the Learned CIT, Panaji to revise the order u/s 143(3) as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 4) The appellant craves to leave to add to, delete from or to modify the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 2. The short facts of the case are that the assessee has sold Capi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove, clearly suggest the interpretation adopted above. b) On a plain reading of the proviso it is submitted that the ceiling of ₹ 50 lac laid down in the proviso is a ceiling on the amount of investment and not on the total amount of exemption, and further the said ceiling on the amount of investments also qua the aggregate in a financial year and not qua the aggregate per assessee in different years as such. 2.1 The ld. AR submitted that the order under proposed revision is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The AO has granted deduction u/s 54EC in respect of both amounts invested in two different financial years ending on 31.3.2008 and 31.3.2009 in accordance with law. The ITAT in Aspi Gin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rived Capital Gains of ₹ 1,36,86,597/-. The assessee has invested ₹ 50 lacs on 31.3.2008 in F.Y. 2007-08 and ₹ 40 lacs on 30.6.2008 in F.Y. 2008-09. Thus, the assessee has not invested ₹ 50 lacs in one financial year in eligible bonds u/s 54EC. The assessee has invested these two amounts in different Assessment Years. The AO has allowed the claim u/s 54EC of the Income Tax Act for total amount of ₹ 90 lacs. We find that the ITAT in Aspi Ginwala, Shree Ram Engg. Mfg. Industries [2012] 20 Taxman 75 (Ahd.) ( supra) has held that it is permissible to grant deduction for amount invested in two financial years so long as the amount invested in one year does not exceed ₹ 50 lacs. We find from this decision th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
