OM PRAKASH & SONS(HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-56(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4934/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 December 2020AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the property was sold on December 3, 2012, and investments were made within 6 months from the transfer date, even though across two financial years. Following the Madras High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Coromandel Industries Ltd., the disallowance was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an HUF, claimed a deduction of Rs. 1 crore under Section 54EC for investments made in REC bonds. The Assessing Officer restricted the deduction to Rs. 50,00,000/-, citing an amendment to Section 54EC by the Finance Act, 2014.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether the deduction under Section 54EC should be restricted to Rs. 50,00,000/- as per the amended provisions or allowed at Rs. 1 crore based on the timing of investments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54EC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHUSHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Respondent: Ms. Aman Preet, Sr. D.R.;
Hearing: 21/12/2020Pronounced: 21/12/2020

Assessee by : N o n e; Revenue by: Ms. Aman Preet, Sr. D.R.; Date of Hearing 21/12/2020 Date of pronouncement 21/12/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M.

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT (Appeals)- 19, New Delhi, dated 24.05.2017 for Assessment Year 2013-14 wherein the dispute is with respect to the disallowance of deduction under Section 54EC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

2.

The brief facts of the case show that assessee is an HUF. It filed its return of income on 27.07.2013 declaring income of Rs.1,50,59,000/-. Out of that sum assessee has earned the Long term capital gain of Rs.1,47,17,750/-.

3.

The assessee has sold property at 483, Village Mauza, Jhilmil Tahirpur, Shahdara, Delhi, for Rs.5.25 crores and Long term capital gain was shown at Rs.4,60,38,523/-. The assessee claimed the deduction under Section 54F of the Act of Rs.2,15,20,774/-. Further assessee purchased REC Bonds of Rs.50,00,000/- in FY 2012-13 and further Rs.50,00,000/- in FY 2013-14 and correspondingly claimed total deduction under Section 54EC of the Act of Rs.1 crore. The ld. Assessing Officer held that the exemption Page | 1 under Section 54EC of the Act is to be restricted to only Rs.50,00,000/- and not Rs. 1crore. The ld. Assessing Officer held that Finance Act, 2014 has amended Section 54EC wherein it is stated that deduction under Section 54EC cannot exceed Rs. 50,00,000/-. He also relied on the Explanatory note to the provisions of Section 54EC. Thus, the dispute in this appeal is that whether the assessee will get the benefit of deduction under Section 54EC of Rs.1 crore or only Rs.50,00,000/-. On appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals) the action of the ld. Assessing Officer is sustained. Therefore, assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

Despite notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The ld. DR was heard.

5.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the order of the lower authorities. In this case the property is sold on 03rd December, 2012. The assessee invested on 27.12.2012 Rs.20,00,000/- in National Highway Authority Bonds, on 31.03.2013 in Rural Electrical Corporation Bonds of Rs.30,00,000/- and on 29th May, 2013 in NHAI Bonds of Rs.50,00,000/-. The investment made by the assessee of the Long term capital gain is admittedly in two different Financial Years, but within 6 months from the date of the transfer of capital asset. In such a situation the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Coromandel Industries Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 586 (Mad.) clearly covers the issue in favour of the assessee. In view of this we direct the ld. Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of Rs.50,00,000/- under Section 54EC of the Act and grant the total deduction in that Section of Rs.1 crore. Accordingly, ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on : 21/12/2020.

More judgments on Section 54EC

All 476 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54EC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →