Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5,20,87,347/-. Against the same, the Assessee claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act of Rs.

3,00,26,154/- towards the amounts paid to M/s DLF towards construction of house at DLF Magnolias Golf Links, and a further sum of Rs. 1,10,19,424/- towards bank charges and cost of improvement on the same. It may also be stated at this juncture that the above amounts were paid to M/s DLF in pursuance of an agreement dated 10.02.2006. 2.4. Further, the Assessee, on 31.01.2012 also purchased eligible bonds u/s 54EC of the Act worth Rs. 50,00,000/-, and further, on 31.05.2012, also purchased additional eligible bonds u/s 54EC of the Act worth Rs. 50,00,000/-.

4. CLAIM U/S 54EC IS ALLOWABLE 4.1. The relevant facts regarding this claim are that against the capital gains arising out of sale of the residential house on 21.12.2011, as detailed above, the Assessee purchased eligible bonds of the Rural Electrification Corporation ('REC') worth Rs. 50 Lakhs on 31.01.2012 vide No. 0900848, and worth Rs.

50 Lakhs on 31.05.2012 vide No. 0912416.

4.2. Before addressing the merits of the instant claim, the Assessee first wishes to draw the attention of this Hon'ble Tribunal to the amendment brought into section 54EC of the Act by way of the Finance Act, 2014, whereby a second proviso was inserted in the said section, which reads as under:

"Provided further that the investment made by an assessee in the long-term specified asset, from capital gains arising from transfer or one or more original assets, during the financial year in which the original asset or assets are transferred and in the subsequent financial year does not exceed fifty lakh rupees. "

4.3. The Notes on Clauses appended to the Finance Act, 2014 explain the proviso, which, to the extent relevant, read as under:

"Clause 23 of the Bill seeks to amend section 54EC of the Income-tax Act relating to capital gain not to be charged on investment in certain bonds. The existing provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 54EC provide that where capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset and the assessee has within a period of six months invested the whole or part of capital gains in long- term specified asset, the proportionate capital gains so invested in the long-term specified asset out of total capital gain shall not be charged to tax. The proviso to the said sub-section provides that the investment made in the long-term specified asset during any financial year shall not exceed fifty lakh rupees.

6.1 As regards ground no. 2 which relates to disallowance of deduction u/s.54EC to the extent of Rs.50,00,000/- is concerned, we find that the AO had restricted the deduction claimed u/s.54EC to Rs. 50,00,000/- as against the deduction claimed by the appellant amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- following the decision of the Honorable Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench in the case of ACIT Circle-2 vs. Shri Raj Kumar Jain & Sons HUF, January 31 2012. However, the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has strangely and obliquely stopped short of making observation / mention of the very recent Judgment of Honorable High Court of Madras dated December 16, 2014 in case of Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Coromandal Industries Limited placed before him for the reason best known to him only. This is to be understood that the restriction of Rs. 50,00,000/- in a financial year was placed for evenly distributing the invest into the capital gains bonds on continued basis throughout the year. Therefore, the alternative was put into operation were in the capital gain bonds are available on tap throughout the year without stopping but the limit of investment has been capped to Rs. 50,00,000/- per assessee per financial year. This has resulted in even distribution of benefit to public at large. Had the intention of the legislation was cap the total investment to Rs. 50,00,000/-, the amendment in statute would have prescribed the limit on deduction allowed under the section 54EC and not on investment allowed under section 54EC. Therefore, the interpretation of ITAT, Jaipur Bench in ACIT Circle-2 vs. Shri Raj Kumar Jain & Sons HUF, is misplaced, in total disregard to juagment of the higher authority (i.e. Honorable Madras High Court) which has elaborately discussed the issue involved, ambiguity of law and the provisions of latest amendments made to section 54EC by the Finance Act 2014 including the Notes on clauses - Finance Bill 2014 and Memorandum : Explaining the provisions in the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2014; placing restriction on "lent to Rs. 50 lakhs with effect from 01.04.2015 by inserting a second proviso, assessing officer has totally ignored his reply in as much as reliance placed on the judgment of the Honorable Madras High Court. The Honorable High of Madras has held as under:-