SHIV KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 37(4), KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No.1103/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shiv Kumar Agarwal...........................................................................................Appellant 5, Tarak Pramanik Road, 2nd Floor, Near Girish Park, Kolkata-700006 [PAN No. AFJPA0455P] Vs. ITO, Ward 37(4)..................................…………..…………………....……….Respondent Kolkata- 700001 Appearances by: Piyush Chirania, CA, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Praveen Das Chowdhury, (Sr. D.R),appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : July 01, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : August 14 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.01.2026 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), passed under Section 143(3) of the Assessment Year 2013-14 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

At the very outset, it appears from the report of the Registry, the appeal has been filed by the assessee after a delay of 20 days. Assessee has filed a petition supported with an affidavit to

ITA No.1103./Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2013-14 condone the delay. Going over the contents of the petition, delay is hereby condoned.

ITA No.1103./Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2013-14 54EC cannot exceed Rs.50 lakhs Consequently, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) at an enhanced income of Rs. 95,11,160/- after making these additions.

Aggrieved by the said order, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) wherein appeal of the assessee has been partly allowed as the CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 57 and 54F, the claim u/s 54EC was partly disallowed to the extent of Rs. 50,00,000/- as against 1,00,00,000/-.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied, the assessee preferred appeal before us.

ITA No.1103./Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2013-14 and it is applicable for the relevant assessment year 2013-14. The ld. AR by filing decision of the Kolkata Bench passed in case of Sweta Sonthalia VS ITO in ITA No. 207/Kol/2025 has submitted that benefit u/s 54EC cannot be denied where the assessee has invested Rs. 50,00,000/- each in two different financial years within a period of 6 months within a date of the transfer. The Ld. AR submits that the Hon’ble ITAT Kolkata in Sweta Sonthalia case has relied upon the decision of the High Court. The Ld. AR further submits that reliance placed by the CIT(A) on the decision in the case of ACIT VS Raj Kumar Jain and Sons is not at all applicable in the present case. The prayer of the AR is that keeping in view the judgment passed by the Kolkata Tribunal,the appeal of the assessee allowed by directing the CIT(A) to grant deduction u/s 54EC amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as claimed by the assessee.

Contrary to that Ld. DR supports the impugned order.

ITA No.1103./Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2013-14 certain additions were made by disallowing the claim of the deduction u/s 577, 54F and 54EC of the Act. The CIT(A) had given relief to the assessee by allowing the claim of deduction u/s 57 and 54F and partly disallowed the claim u/s 54EC to the extent of Rs. 50,00,000/-. It is a fact that assessee has sold a property on 29.12.2012 and earned a long- term capital gains and in order to avail exemption u/s 54EC, the assessee invested the capital gains in specified bonds in two trenches, Rs. 50,00,000/- on 28.03.2013 and Rs. 50,00,000/- on 28.06.2013. It is admitted an undisputed position that both the investments were made within the prescribed period of 6 months from the date of the transaction of the capital assets. The first proviso to Section 54EC stipulates the investments made in such bonds during in financial year shall not exceed Rs. 50,00,000/-. Thus, the statute prescribed two independent conditions, namely the time limit of six months and the monitory ceiling of Rs. 50,00,000/- per financial year. A harmonious and literal reading of provisions along with the proviso makes it clear that restriction of Rs. 50,00,000/- applies to each financial year and not to the transaction as a whole. In the present case, period of 6 months from the date of the transfer overlaps two financial year. We have

ITA No.1103./Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2013-14 gone through the order passed by the Kolkata Tribunal in Sweta Sonthalia case and this issue has been dealt by the Tribunal by

observing thus: -

ITA No.1103./Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2013-14 6. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the order of lower authorities and find that the Ld. AO has denied the claim of exemption on investment in REC made on 23.04.2013 on the ground that the exemption can be claimed on any amount which has not been invested during the year concern. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee against the above claim of exemption has made investment of Rs. 50 lakhs on 30.03.20133 in bond of NHAI and has further sum of Rs. 50 Lakhs in the bond REC. It is clear that both the above made investment is very much within the period of six months from the date of transfer of asset i.e. 25.03.2013. The assessee has purchased two bonds each of Rs. 50 lakhs of National Highway Authority of India vide cheque no. 588824 and cleared by the bank on 30.03.2013 and re-error of electrification of Corporation Ltd. (REC) vide cheque no. 8582 and the same is cleared by the bank on 23.04.2013. The assessee had deposited Rs. 25 lakhs in CGHS by making fixed deposit on IDBI Bank Ltd. on 20.07.2013 before the due date of filing of return. The first proviso to section 54EC is specified claim of investment and states that investment so made on or before 1st April, 2007 in the long term specified asset by assessee during any financial year does not exceed fifty lakhs rupees. We have gone through the cited judgment by the assessee and find that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Coromondal Industries Ltd. (supra) has discussed this issued and held thus: “Section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Not to be charged on investment in certain bonds (Limitation period for investment) - Whether where assessee company invested long term capital 4 I.T.A. No. 207/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sweta Sonthalia gain in REC bonds in two different financial years but within six months from date of transfer of capital asset, exemption claimed would be allowed - Held, yes [Paras 4 and 6] [In favour of assessee]” The relevant portion of the above judgment is reproduced herein below: “3. We have heard Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and Mr.Venkat Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. The issue involved in this appeal is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Court in CIT v. C. Jaichander [Order dated 15.9.2014 made in T.C.(A) Nos. 419 and 533 of 2014], to which one of us - R.Sudhakar,J. is a party). In the said decision, this Court held as under: ‘5. The key issue that arises for consideration is whether the first proviso to Section 54EC(1) of the Act would restrict the benefit of investment of capital gains in bonds to that financial year during which the property was sold or it applies to any financial year during the six months period.

ITA No.1103./Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2013-14 6. For better understanding of the issue, it would be apposite to refer to Section 54EC(1) of the Act, which reads as under: 'Section 54EC. Capital gain not to be charged on investment in certain bonds.— (1) Where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset (the capital asset so transferred being hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset) and the assessee has, at any time within a period of six months after the date of such transfer, invested the whole or any part of capital gains in the long-term specified asset, the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,— (a) if the cost of the long-term specified asset is not less than the capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain shall not be charged under section 45 ; (b) if the cost of the long-term specified asset is less than the capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset, so much of the capital gain as bears to the whole of the capital gain the same proportion as the cost of acquisition of the long-term specified asset bears to the whole of the capital gain, shall not be charged under section 45. 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.' 7. 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. .8. The legislature noticing the ambiguity in the above said provision, by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, with effect from 1.4.2015, inserted after the existing proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 54EC of the Act, a second proviso, 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 of one or more original assets, during the 5 I.T.A. No. 207/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sweta Sonthalia financial year in which the original asset or assets are transferred and in the subsequent financial year does not exceed fifty lakh rupees." 8

ITA No.1103./Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2013-14 9. At this juncture, for better clarity, it would be appropriate to refer to the Notes on Clauses - Finance Bill 2014 and the Memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014, which read as under: "Notes on Clauses - Finance Bill 2014: 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 the 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. It is proposed to insert a proviso below first proviso in said sub-section (1) so as to provide that the investment made by an assessee in the long-term specified asset, from capital gains arising from transfer of 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. This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2015 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent years. Memorandum: Explaining the provisions in the Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014: Capital gains exemption on investment in Specified Bonds. The existing provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 54EC of the Act provide that where capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset and the assessee has, at any time within a period of six months, invested the whole or any part of capital gains in the long-term specified asset, out of the whole of the 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. However, the wordings of the proviso have created an ambiguity. As a result the capital gains arising during the year after the month of September were invested in the specified asset in such a manner so as to split the investment in two years i.e., one within the year and second in the next year but before the expiry of six months. This resulted in the claim for relief of one crore rupees as against the intended limit for relief of fifty lakhs rupees. Accordingly, it is proposed to insert a proviso in sub-section (1) so as to provide that the investment made by an assessee in the long-term specified asset, out of capital gains arising from transfer of one or more original asset, during the financial year in which the original asset or

ITA No.1103./Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2013-14 assets are transferred and in the subsequent financial year does not exceed fifty lakh rupees. This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2015 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent assessment years." .10. The legislature has chosen to remove the ambiguity in the proviso to Section 54EC(1) of the Act by inserting a second proviso with effect from 1.4.2015.The memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014 also states that the same will be applicable from 1.4.2015 in relation to assessment year 2015-16 and the subsequent 6 I.T.A. No. 207/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sweta Sonthalia years. The intention of the legislature probably appears to be that this amendment should be for the assessment year 2015- 2016 to avoid unwanted litigations of the previous years. Even otherwise, we do not wish to read anything more into the first proviso to Section 54EC(1) of the Act, as it stood in relation to the assessees. 11. In any event, from a reading of Section 54EC(1) and the first proviso, it is clear that the time limit for investment is six months from the date of transfer and even if such investment falls under two financial years, the benefit claimed by the assessee cannot be denied. It would have made a difference, if the restriction on the investment in bonds to Rs.50,00,000/- is incorporated in Section 54EC(1) of the Act itself. However, the ambiguity has been removed by the legislature with effect from 1.4.2015 in relation to the assessment year 2015-16 and the subsequent years. For the foregoing reasons, we find no infirmity in the orders passed by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. The substantial questions of law are answered against the Revenue and these appeals are dismissed.' (Emphasis Supplied) .5. The decision of this Court in Areva T and D India Ltd (supra) relied upon by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the said decision the writ petitions filed "for issuance of writ of declaration declaring that the conditions occurring in Notification No. 380 of 2006 F. No. 142/09/ 2006-TPL, dated December 22, 2006, along with the words 'subject to the following conditions, namely,' issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes are ultra vires Section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India and consequently unenforceable", were dismissed as infructuous taking note of the subsequent amendment to Section 54EC of the Act, incorporating the limit on amount of investment in bonds in the section itself. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any question of law, much less substantial question of law that arises for our consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.” 10

ITA No.1103./Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2013-14 .7. We have also gone through the order passed by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court passed in CIT vs. Smt. Neena Krishna Menon which has also been held thus: “Section 54EC, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Not to be charged on investment in certain bonds (2015 Amendment) - Assessment year 2009-10 - Whether amendment to section 54EC brought with effect from 1-4-2015 restricting investment in assets from sale consideration on sale of original asset to Rs. 50 lakhs is prospective in nature, thus; prior to assessment year 2015-16, it was possible for assessee to claim deduction of Rs. 1 crore by investing Rs. 50 lakhs in each of financial years but within six months from date of transfer- Held, yes [Paras 6 to 9] [In favour of assessee]” 8. Going over the cited judicial pronouncement as well as considering the facts of the case, we find substance in the argument of the ld. Counsel of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. The assessee is entitled to claim exemption u/s 54EC of the Act. The order passed by the AO confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside and addition made on this account directed to be deleted. 7 I.T.A. No. 207/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sweta Sonthalia In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 5. Keeping in view the facts of the case and considering the order passed by the Tribunal Kolkata. The order passed by the AO confirmed by the CIT(A). On this issue hereby set aside and the addition made on this account to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- are hereby deleted.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.

Kolkata, the 14th August , 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member

ITA No.1103./Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2013-14

DC Dated: 14 .08.2026.

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order Deputy Registrar, Kolkata Benches

ITA No.1103./Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2013-14 3