| COURT: | |
| CORAM: | |
| SECTION(S): | |
| GENRE: | |
| CATCH WORDS: | |
| COUNSEL: | |
| DATE: | (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | December 21, 2012 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | |
| CITATION: | |
| Click here to download the judgement (jairazbhoy_54EC_limit_50_lakhs.pdf) |
S. 54EC limit of Rs. 50L does not apply to the transaction but financial year. Cheque has to be issued within 6 months. Encashment of Cheque & Allottment of Bonds beyond 6 months is irrelevant
In AY 2008-09, the assessee sold land on 14.12.2007 and computed capital gains of Rs. 1.57 crores. He invested Rs.50 lakhs on 3.3.2008 (FY 2007-08) in REC Bonds and Rs. 50 lakhs on 4.6.2008 (FY 2008-09) in NHAI Bonds and claimed a deduction of Rs. 1 crore u/s 54EC. The NHAI Bonds were allotted on 30.6.2008. The AO & CIT(A) restricted the assessee’s claim to Rs. 50 lakhs on the ground that (i) the Proviso to s. 54EC imposed a ceiling of Rs. 50 lakhs for the investment and (ii) the allotment of the NHAI Bonds was made beyond 6 months of the date of transfer. On appeal by the assessee, HELD allowing the appeal:
(i) In Aspi Ginwala (ITAT Ahmedabad) it was held that the Proviso to s. 54EC merely restricted the investment that can be made in one FY to Rs. 50 Lkahs but it did not restrict the exemption to Rs.50 lakhs. However, a contrary view was taken in Raj Kumar Jain & Sons (ITAT Jaipur) that the exemption u/s 54EC had to be restricted to Rs.50 lakhs. However, Circular no.3/2008 dated 12.3.2008 issued by the CBDT makes it clear that the Proviso only intended to restrict the investment in a particular financial year and did not intend to restrict the maximum amount of exemption permissible u/s 54EC. The fact that the Proviso uses the words “in a financial year” fortifies this interpretation. Accordingly, it has to be held that the assessee is entitled to total deduction of Rs. 1 crores in respect of the investment of Rs. 50 lakhs made in each financial year;
(ii) The cheque was issued to NHAI before the expiry of 6 months from the date of transfer. The fact that the allotment of the Bonds was made after 6 months is irrelevant. A payment by cheque which is encashed subsequently relates back to the date of receipt of the cheque. The date of payment is the date of delivery of the cheque and not the date of its encashment (Kumarpal Amrutlal Doshi (ITAT Mumbai) followed).
sorry to note how revenue works, that is why tax rules have to be made relevant and the rules irrelevantly applied. irrelevant applications only is the worst harassment n assessee, i wonder when revenue does not synchronize it is worse type of harassment of assesse, after all revenue authorities are not just robots. Revenue authorities when the get peculiar situations they need to get CBDT CLARIFICATIONS INSTEAD OF RELYING ON ARCHAIC RULES AND THUS BE FRIENDLY WITH ASSESSE, I WOULD HAVE DONE IF I WERE THE CHAIRPERSON OF CBDT
THE LIMIT / CAP ON INVESTMENT IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE GOVT. ON ONE HAND THE A RESORT TO GIFT OUT THE EXCESS TO A FAMILY MEMBER TO THE EXTENT OF EXCESS OF THE CAP ANG THE GOVT. IS NOT GETTING THE RESOURCES TO AUGMENT THE INFRA SECTORAL DEVELOPMENT.
AT LEAST REALISTIC CAP MUST BE PROVIDED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!