The difference arises on two counts. Firstly, the date from which the period of six months is to be reckoned. While the assessee contends it to be as 10.03.2008, i.e., the date of receipt of the consideration for transfer (of the long term capital asset), the Revenue adopts the said date as 29.02.2008, i.e., the date of the agreement, as the transfer u/s. 2(47) of the Act occurred only on the said date. Two, while the Revenue considers the period of six months to expire exactly on August 31, 2008; the same commencing on March 01, 2008, i.e., the date following the date of transfer, and even considering it as commencing from the date of receipt of consideration, on 09.09.2008, the assessee’s stand is that the period of six months would expire only on 30.09.2008, i.e., the date of allotment of the said bonds, so that its claim is valid in law. There are, it was claimed by him, decisions by the tribunal on both these aspects in the assessee’s favour. With regard to the first issue, i.e., the date from which the six month period is to reckoned, he would rely on the decision in the case of Chanchal Kumar Sircar vs. ITO [2012] 50 SOT 289 (Kolkata) [16 ITR (Trib) 91]; the tribunal holding that the period of six months for the purpose of deposit u/s.54EC should be reckoned from the date of the actual receipt of the consideration in its respect. In respect of the second issue, he relied on the decision in the case of Yahya E. Dhariwala vs. Dy. CIT [2012] 49 SOT 458 (Mum), wherein the tribunal held that the word ‘month’ as occurring in the provision, being not specified, the same would need to be understood, in terms of section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, as per the British calendar, relying for the purpose on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Kadri Mills (Coimbatore) Ltd. [1977] 106 ITR 846 (Mad) and CIT vs. Brijlal Lohia and Mahabir Prasad Khemka [1980] 124 ITR 485 (Cal.).
ITAT MUMBAI BENCH “A”
AQUATECH ENGINEERS
vs.
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
ITA No. 8029/Mum/2011
Date of Pronouncement – 19th June, 2013
ORDER
1. This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 07.09.2011, partly allowing the assessee’s appeal contesting its assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2008-09 vide order dated 24.12.2010.
2.1 Opening the arguments for and on behalf of the assessee, it was submitted by the ld. AR, the assessee’s counsel, that the sole issue arising in the instant appeal relates to the validity of the assessee’s claim in respect of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) u/s.54EC of the Act, claimed by it in the sum of Rs. 49,72,923/-. The Revenue has denied the said claim on the ground that the investment in the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) bonds, entitling it to deduction u/s.54EC, stood made beyond six months of the date of transfer, i.e., the period specified under the relevant provision, so that the assessee’s claim is not maintainable in law. The relevant dates, which are not in dispute, are as under:-
