Exemption u/s 54EC on investment made before transfer not allowable

0 Comments

1. vswami says:

   TO ADD: The Order observes, – “There is no direct case law of Section 54EC for claiming of exemption even investment made before, has been brought in the knowledge of the Bench.”

   The assessee, however, is noted to have cited and relied on , inter alia, the case of ,-
   Bhikulal Chandak (HUF) v. ITO [2009] 126 TTJ 545 (Nagpur) Circular No. 359 dated 10th May 1983 Exemption u/s. 54EC –
   holding that ” Investment made prior to the date of transfer out of advance received – eligible”

   Whether the cited case, in particular the department’s own referred Circular binding on the Revenue , does not throw sufficient  light  on the legislative ‘intention’  in regard to the issue, has not been properly stressed; hence not gone into  by the tribunal. Assessees  may possibly try and find support ; in which event, be expected to take a suitable stand in future.

     Reply

   June 27, 2012 at 4:38 pm
2. vswami says:

   On the first blush: The Order of the ITAT stands out, is rather puzzling; in that, it is not readily  reconcilable with the thus far commonly prevailing understanding of the whole scheme of the entire gamut of provisions of the Act dealing with tax exemption of  capital gains arising on housing and certain other capital assets. It calls for a pointed mention that, for the purposes of exemption as provided in  section 54, on a reading, in totality, of the entire scheme of the provisions, it is , in one’s conviction, an indisputably admitted position that , for availing of the exemption, a one-to-one correlation of the ‘net consideration’ or ‘amount of capital gains’, as the case may be, with the investment in a ‘new asset’ is not at all warranted. The rationale behind is, otherwise, depending on facts, it could ab ab initio prove to be a non-starter; a situation in which availing of  the otherwise clearly intended  exemption is  rendered  well-nigh impossible.
   It is quite likely that , as the tribunal is seen to have handed down its view based on a narrow reading and interpretation of the crucial wording , – “at any time within a period of six months after the date of such transfer”, in isolation, without having due regard to the other inter-connected /related provisions, the issue might be agitated, in one’s view deservedly so, in further proceedings.

     Reply

   June 27, 2012 at 3:14 pm