Case Law Details
Jatender Singh Marvaha Vs D.DI.T (ITAT Kolkata)
It is an admitted fact that the amount in question to the extent of Rs. 49,00,000/- was seized by the IT Authority. The facts in respect of sale of land, search & seizure operation, issuance of notice u/s. 153A of the Act and filing of return for the A.Y under consideration are undisputed.
It is also not disputed that the amount of sale of said land was lying in the custody and in the account of Government. We find that in response to notice issued u/s. 153A of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on for the A.Y under consideration and claimed exemption of Rs.40,00,000/- u/s. 54EC of the Act.
Both AO & CIT-A have denied the claim of exemption of Rs.40,00,000/- for want of proper evidence showing the capital gains were invested in specified bonds i.e provided by the Government of India, National Highway Authority Bonds (NHAI). The deduction u/s. 54EC of the Act is permissible if the amount representing the long term capital gain is invested in specified bonds within prescribed time.
In the present case, the assessee had admitted that he had not made any investments in specified bonds notified u/s. 54EC of the Act. The assessee only claims that since the major portion of the sale proceeds of the property amounting to Rs. 49,00,000/- was seized by the Income-tax Department pursuant to search on 26-01-2011. No money was left with the assessee to make investments in specified bonds. Since the monies were lying to the account of the Central Government, the ld.AR pleaded that the same should be construed as amount being invested by the assessee as per section 54EC Bonds. This argument of the ld.AR cannot be accepted and is untenable in law.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
please our subscribe canceled