Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The appellant prays that the order of CIT-A on the above grounds be set aside to the file of AO or confirm the order of the AO.

3. ―The appellant craves leave to amend or later any granted or add a new ground which may be necessary.‖

3. In this case the assessee had claimed exemption u/s.54EC at Rs.1,00,00,000/- out of the Long Term Capital Gains. During assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to justify the said exemption of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as against the limit Rs.50,00,000/- specified under that section. The A.O further observed that investment of Rs.50,00,000/- each were made within 6 months from the date of sale of capital assets twice in the year, and the investments in bonds of REC Bonds do not exceed Rs.50,00,000/- per FY. It was contended by the assessee before A.O. that there is no restriction on the quantum of deduction allowable u/s.54EC of the Act. That the limit prescribed under the first proviso to the section is only in respect of investment during a financial year. That it is only the investment during a financial year which is restricted to Rs.50,00,000/- and not the deduction u/s.54EC of the Act. That in view of the above, the assessee submitted that deduction of Rs.1,00,00,000/- was correctly claimed u/s.54EC of the Act.

Nilesh Ramesh Ganjwala ITA no.7112/Mum./2014 However the A.O was not satisfied he referred to the provisions of section 54EC and the proviso there to. A.O concluded as under:-

―The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur ‗A' Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Shri Raj Kumar Jain & sons (HUF)(2012) 20 ITR(T) 212 (Jaipur), wherein a similar case of the assessee, the deduction u/s. 54EC, in respect of investments in long term specified assets of Rs.100 lakhs spread over two financial years, was restricted to Rs.50 lakhs only.

―Adverting to the instant case the fact on record clearly demonstrates that the assessee had made investment of Rs.1 crore split into Rs.50 lacs each in two financial year on 21.01.2011 and 06.07.2011 respectively. Hence the ratio of the decision, supra, is applicable in the assessee's case.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the factual and legal matrix of the case the addition of Rs.50 lacs u/s. 54EC stands deleted.‖

5. Against this order revenue is in appeal before us. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. Ld. D.R relied upon the order's of the A.O and the grounds of appeal. Per contra Ld. Nilesh Ramesh Ganjwala ITA no.7112/Mum./2014 Counsel of the assessee submitted that identical issue was considered by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. C. Jaichander 370 ITR 579. Ld. Counsel submitted that after elaborate consideration the Hon'ble High court has found that second provisio to section 54EC is effectively from 11.04.2015. Hence Ld. Counsel submitted that the said proviso is not applicable in assessee's case and hence the A.O's order is unsustainable.

Provided that the investment made on or after the 1st day of April, 2007 in the long-term specified asset by an assessee during any financial year does not exceed fifty lakh rupees.‖ On a plain reading of the above said provision, we are of the view that Section 54EC(1) of the Act restricts the time limit for the period of investment after the property has been sold to six months. There is no cap on the investment to be made in bonds. The first proviso to Section 54EC(1) of the Act specifies the quantum of investment and it states that the investment so made on or after 1.4.2007 in the long-term specified asset by an assessee during any financial year does not exceed fifty lakh rupees. In other words, as per the mandate of Section 54EC(1) of the Act, the time limit for investment is six months and the benefit that flows from the first proviso is that if the assessee makes the investment of Rs.50,00,000/- in any financial year, it would have the benefit of Section 54EC(1) of the Act.