TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal deleted the addition and held that admittedly the amount was deposited in the Escrow Account - HELD THAT:- Both the transferrer and the transferee had common rights over the said amount as the said amount was deposited in the Escrow Account as a security in respect of future liabilities of the company/ transferor. There was no certainty about the quantum of amount likely to be received by transferor or transferee out of the said amount deposited in Escrow Account. - Since, there was no certainty of the time of release of the said amount or the part of the amount to either of the parties as dispute between the parties had occurred and the litigation was going on, it cannot be said that the assessee had got a vested right to receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order dated 14.3.2018 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, 'B', Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) in ITA No. 650/Chd/2017, for the assessment year 2008-09, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT's order is perverse as the agreement to sell was executed on 19.11.2007 and the assessee had received 90% of the total consideration amounting to ₹ 4,71,69,579/- which was more than 90% of the total consideration in the F.Y. 2007-08 relevant to A.Y. 2008-09 and had the requisite funds to invest within six months of the transfer to claim the benefit under section 54EC? ii) Whether on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of six months from the date of transfer of the shares irrespective of when the whole or part of sale consideration was actually received, the assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 54EC of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 30.10.2015 (Annexure A-1) disallowed the benefit of exemption under Section 54EC of the Act as claimed by the assessee and made addition of ₹ 40,28,748/-. Feeling aggrieved by the order, Annexure A-1, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh [for brevity the CIT(A) ]. The CIT(A) vide order dated 22.2.2017 (Annexure A-2) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. Still dissatisfied, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18,00,000/- was deposited in the Escrow Account. Both the transferrer and the transferee had common rights over the said amount as the said amount was deposited in the Escrow Account as a security in respect of future liabilities of the company/ transferor. There was no certainty about the quantum of amount likely to be received by transferor or transferee out of the said amount deposited in Escrow Account. Since, there was no certainty of the time of release of the said amount or the part of the amount to either of the parties as dispute between the parties had occurred and the litigation was going on, it cannot be said that the assessee had got a vested right to receive the amount in question. It was only at the end of the litigation that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... right to receive the amount in question. It was only at the end of the litigation that the rights and liabilities of the transferor and transferee were ascertained and thereupon the share of the assessee was passed on to the assessee for which the assessee offered capital gains in the immediate A.Y. 2010-11. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hemel Raju Shete' (supra) while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'E.D. Sassoon Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT' (supra) has observed that when the taxpayer did not have the vested right to receive a particular amount, it cannot be said that the said amount has accrued to the taxpayer. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 'R. Dalmia Vs. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
