9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. The sole issue leading to the revision of the assessee"s reassessment, proceedings for which were initiated in view of the discrepancies that came to the notice of the Assessing Officer (AO) in the assessee"s share trading transactions, found to be in order in assessment, was the claim for exemption u/s. 54EC of the Act at Rs. 100 lacs, i.e., as against at Rs. 50 lacs, at which sum, the same, in the opinion of the ld. Pr. CIT, ought to have been allowed in (re)assessment. 3. The assessee"s case is that the AO had taken a plausible view, which in fact is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. C. Jaichander & Anr. (in TC(A) No. 419 & 533/2014, dated 15/09/2014/at PB pgs.48-51), as i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,- (a) if the cost of the long-term specified asset is not less than the capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain shall not be charged under section 45; (b) if the cost of the long-term specified asset is less than the capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset, so much of the capital gain as bears to the whole of the capital gain the same proportion as the cost of acquisition of the long-term specified asset bears to the whole of the capital gain, shall not be charged under section 45: Provided that the investment made on or after the 1st day of April, 2007 in the long-term specified asset ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her investigation or verification/enquiry is to be made by the AO specified. As afore-noted, the facts are not in dispute and, therefore, it is not understood as to what enquiry the AO is required to make in the set aside proceedings. Rather, it is only on the admitted facts that the competent authority opines the exemption u/s. 54EC to be limited to Rs. 50 lacs. Even as observed by this Tribunal in Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank v. Pr. CIT (in ITA No. 45/Jab/2022, dated 15/6/2022), the nature of the inquiry to be made, at least specifying its broad contours, is to be clarified by the revisionary authority for it to be purposeful and qualify as a valid set aside; the relevant part of the said order reading as: "3.2 .....So, however, it is onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suggestive of there being circumstance/s warranting enquiry by the AO, which he has failed to. No..." 4.4 The matter in the instant case, as is apparent, is rather purely legal, so that there is no scope of any inquiry. As regards the different interpretation of s. 54EC by the ld. Pr. CIT, which is the basis of his order, we find no such limitation in the (first) proviso to sec. 54EC(1), which (limitation) rather stands introduced w.e.f. 01/04/2015, i.e., AY 2015-16 onwards, and which itself clarifies that no such limitation obtained prior thereto. Reference, with profit, in this context, be made to the decision in DIT vs. Mitsubishi Corporation [2021] 438 ITR 174 (SC), explaining the relevant principle of interpretation of statues. Both t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
