INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SMT. ARATI ANAND JOGLEKAR, PUNE

आदेश / ORDER

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-5, Pune, dated 11.02.2016 for the A.Y. 2012-13.

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer, on account of disallowance of claim of deduction u/s.54EC of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee failed to invest Rs.50,00,000/- arising on account of LTCG within 6 months from the date of transfer of the Long Term Capital Asset. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim for indexation of the cost of acquisition (i.e. FMV as on 1/4/1981) as per provisions of Section 55 of the I.T. Act.

2 ITA No.1163/PUN/2016 Smt. Arati A. Joglekar

and reported capital gain and income from other source. Assessee filed the

return of income on 01-01-2013 declaring total income of Rs.5,31,390/-. AO

noticed that a property was sold by the assessee in the month of February

2012 and received sale consideration of Rs.2,61,00,000/-. Further,

assessee reinvested Rs.2,10,28,240/- in the purchase of new house. Thus,

the surplus comes to Rs.50,71,760/-. Assessee claimed deduction u/s.54EC

of the Act. Assessee submitted that he has received the last installment of

Rs.57 lakhs on 11-12-2012 and invested the said amount in the Rural

Electrification Corporation Bonds (in short REC) on 26-12-2012 (within six

months) the claimed made by the assessee u/s.54EC should be accepted.

However, AO opined that the transfer of the asset took place in the month of

February, 2012 and the investment in the Rural Electrification Corporation

Bonds should have been on or before August, 2012. Eventually, the AO

disallowed Rs.50 lakhs invested by the assessee in REC. AO also disallowed

an amount of Rs.360/- as income from other sources.

elaborate submissions of the assessee deleted the addition made by the AO.

Contents of Para No. 5.1 to 5.3 of the order of CIT(A) are relevant.

with the grounds extracted above.

3 ITA No.1163/PUN/2016 Smt. Arati A. Joglekar

by the Department is liable to be dismissed on account of low tax effect. The

Ld. AR pointed that as per CBDT Circular No.3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018,

the monetary limit for filing of appeal by the Department before the Tribunal

is Rs.20 Lakhs, therefore, the appeal filed by the Department is not

maintainable.

assessment order and prayed for reversing the findings of the CIT(A).

However, the Ld. DR fairly admitted that the tax effect in the present appeal

is less than Rs.20 Lakhs.

addition made in the assessment year under consideration is on account of

long term capital gains. The total tax effect on the disputed addition of Rs.50

in the present appeal is undisputedly less than Rs. 20 Lakhs. The CBDT

circular No.3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018 raised the monetary limit of tax

effect for filing of appeal by the Department before the Tribunal to Rs.20

Lakhs. The circular applies to the pending appeals of the Department before

the Tribunal too. Thus, in view of the CBDT circular, we are of the opinion

that the present appeal of the Revenue is liable to be dismissed on account

of low tax effect without going into the merits of the case.

Order pronounced on 25th day of July, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/-

(िवकास अव थी /VIKAS AWASTHY) (डी. क�णाकरा राव/D. KARUNAKARA RAO) �ाियक सद�/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; िदनांक / Dated : 25th July, 2018. Satish

4 ITA No.1163/PUN/2016 Smt. Arati A. Joglekar

आदेश की 'ितिलिप अ)ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-5, Pune 4. The Pr. CIT-4, Pune िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” ब"च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाड% फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6.

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

// True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.