Calcutta High Court
M/S Aszo Nobel India Ltd vs Cit on 16 June, 2016
Author: Asha Arora
Bench: Asha Arora
ORDER SHEET
ITA 111 0F 2011
ITAT 102 OF 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax)
ORIGINAL SIDE
M/S ASZO NOBEL INDIA LTD
Versus
CIT, KOLKATA-IV & ANR
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHA ARORA
Date : 16th June, 2016.
For Appellant/Petitioner : Mr.R.N.Bajoria, Sr.Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. R.N.Bandyopadhyay, Advocate
The Court : This appeal is directed against a judgement and order dated 26th November, 2010 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Kolkata in ITA 1620/Kol/2008 and ITA 1721 (Kol)/2008 both pertaining to the assessment year 2004-05. Erlier appeal was an appeal by the assessee and latter appeal was an appeal by the revenue. The appeal of the assessee was disposed of by the learned Tribunal by remanding the matter to the assessing officer. The operative portion of the order reads as follows :
2
"Considering the above facts and in the interest of justice we consider it prudent that the above issue be restored to the AO with a direction that the assessee will furnish the requisite details to the AO of the receipt of sale proceeds and the date of investment. If the AO is satisfied that the said investment had been made within a period of 6 months from the date of the receipt of the sale proceeds, assessee will get the deduction u/s 54EC of the Act. We may state that if the assessee fails to furnish requisite details to the satisfaction of the AO, AO will be at liberty to decide the same as per provisions of law on the basis of the material before him. Hence ground no.2 of the appeal taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes."
We have heard Mr.Bajoria, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant/assessee. We have also heard Mr.Bandyopadhyay, learned advocate for the revenue.
Considering that the learned Tribunal has not given any final opinion as regards the entitlement of the assessee to the deduction under section 54EC, it would not be proper on our part to express any opinion on the following question which was formulated at the time of admission of the appeal.
"Whether the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in disallowing the claim of exemption of the assessee under Section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the amount was deposited before the disputed transaction by totally ignoring the Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 10th May, 1983 which specifically 3 allowed such exemption even if the sale proceeds of long term capital assetes were invested in specified assets even before the transaction of transfer had taken place ?"
We, in stead, think it proper to leave the matter to the assessing officer as was done by the learned Tribunal with the rider that the assessing officer shall consider the question whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction under section 54EC in accordance with law and in the light of the definition of transfer appearing in section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. He shall also consider the applicability, if any, of the circular bearing No.359[ F No.207/8/82-IT(A-II) dated 10.05.1983 issued by the Board with respect to the provision contained in Section 54E.
The appeal is thus disposed of.
As already indicated we are not answering the question formulated at the time of admission of the appeal.
(GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (ASHA ARORA, J.) ssaha AR(CR)