Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
1 ITA No .368/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 14- 15
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.368/CTK/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15
ACIT, Circle 5(1), Vs. Shri Padma Charan Patra, Bhubaneswar, A-97, Saheed nagar, Bhubaneswar PAN/GIR No.AASPP9359 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri P.S.Panda/K.K. Agarwal, ARs Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, DR
Date of Hearing : 17/04/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 17 /04/ 2018
O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the
CIT(A)-2 Bhubaneswar dated 26.6.2017 for the assessment year 2014-
15.
The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- made by the AO disallowing the claim of exemption claimed by the assessee u/s.54EC of the I.T. Act, when the investment made in Long Term Specified Asset has been made after six months of the transfer of the Long Term Capital Asset.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in law as well as on facts in accepting the contention of the assessee and ignoring the date of transfer of
2 ITA No .368/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 14- 15 the property on the basis of sale deed executed and the materials contained therein.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has shown long
term capital gain of Rs.2,39,21,387/- as under:
Particulars Amount Amount i) Sale of Jayev Vihar Plot Sales Proceeds 3,01,00,000 Less:Indexed cost 17,16,675 2,83,83,325 2,33,83,325 ii) Sale of building at Puri Sales proceeds 66,00,000 Less:Indexed cost 60,61,938 5,38,062 2,39,21,387
The Assessing Officer observed that the sale deed was executed on
16.9.2013, whereas the investment in NHAI bond was made on
24.3.2014, which is beyond the period of six months after the date of
transfer of capital asset, as prescribed u/s.54EC of the I.T.Act, 1961.
Therefore, he disallowed deduction of Rs.50,00,000/- to the assessee.
On appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the
period of six months is to be calculated from the end of the month in
which transfer capital asset took place and not from the date of transfer.
For this, the assessee relied on the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad Bench
(SB) in the case of ALKABEN B. PATEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,
148 ITD 31 (2014). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by
following the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad (SB) in the case of Alkaben B
Patel (supra) by observing as under:
“3.4 I have carefully examined the assessment order as well as the submissions of the appellant. I find that the assessing officer has not disputed the date of transfer nor has he
3 ITA No .368/ CTK/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 14- 15 disputed investment of Rs.50 lakh made by the appellant in NHAI bond on 24.03.2014. His only objection for denial of the deduction is that the period of six months is to be counted from the date of transfer of asset. As it can be seen from the decision of the Special Bench (Supra), the period of six months is to be calculated from end of month in which the transfer took place. In the case of the appellant, he has to deposit the money on or before 31.03.2014. He has deposited it on 24.03.2014, which is well within the time limit. Accordingly, the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs.50 lakh is ordered to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed.”
Ld D.R. could not point out any specific error in the above quoted
order of the CIT(A). He also could not cite any contrary decision of
Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was in favour of
the revenue. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A),
which is hereby confirmed and the grounds of appeal of the revenue are
dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 17 /04/2018. Sd/- sd/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (N.S Saini) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 17/04/2018 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. ACIT, Circle 5(1), The Appellant : Bhubaneswar 2. The Respondent. Shri Padma Charan Patra, A-97, Saheed nagar, Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT-2, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack BY ORDER, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack