Case Law Details
This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-29, Mumbai dated 13.02.2014 for A.Y. 2013-14 on the following effective grounds of appeal: –
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim u/s 54EC of the Act, of making investment in RECL Bonds of Rs.50,00,000/- each in 2 financial years without considering the duly the provisions of the IT Act 1961 that the total exemption allowed is Rs.50 Lacs only and that the second proviso to section 54EC is clarificatory in nature.
2. The Appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.”
2. The brief facts of the case art ht the assessee being an individual filed the return of income on 30.07.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 58,60,850/-. The AO noted that the assessee received capital gains of Rs. 7,65,20,244/- from sale of tenancy rights during the year under consideration. The assessee claimed deduction under section 54EC amounting to Rs. 1 crore from the investment in RECL Bonds. The investment of Rs. 50 lakhs each were made in the month of March 2013 and May, 2013 falling within the stipulated period of six months but in two different financial years. The AO disallowed Rs.50 lakhs under section 54EC as in his opinion the deduction under section 54 EC by making an investment cannot exceed Rs. 50 lakhs in the assessment year. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). Relying on the decisions of various Tribunals and after interpreting the provisions of Section 54EC the CIT(A) allowed the ground of appeal of the assessee and directed the AO to allow the deduction under section 54EC amounting to Rs. 1 crore. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
3. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the same. We noted that this issue is duly covered in favour of the Assessee by the decision of the Bangalore Bench in case of Vivek Jairazbhoy Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, ITA No. 236/Bang/2012 and Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Aspi Ginwala, Shree Ram Engg. & Mfg. Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, 20 taxmann.com 75 (Ahd.). In the case of Aspi Ginwala, the co-ordinate bench has held as under: –
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
