Shri Balkrishna P.Trivedi,HUF, Ahmedabad V. The CIT-III, Ahmedabad

ITA 1225/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7371 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 8 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 30-01-2020
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Additional evidence; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 54B; 54F; 54EC; 13

Judgement Text

, C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NOS. 1225/AHD/2013 & 997/AHD/2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) BALKRISHNA P. TRIVEDI HUF 10, SBI SOC., OPP. MANEKBAUG HALL, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD 380015 / VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD-III AHMEDABAD & DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6, PRATYAKSH KAR BHAVAN, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD 380015 ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) & ./ I.T.A. NO. 1229/AHD/2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD / VS. BALKRISHNA P. TRIVEDI HUF 10, SBI SOC., OPP. MANEKBAUG HALL, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD 380015 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAAHT1746C ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HARDIK VORA, A.R. / REVENUE BY : SHRI RITESH PARMAR, CIT. D.R. SHRI UMESH KUMAR AGARWAL, SR. D.R. ITA NOS. 1225/AHD/13, 1229 & 997/AHD/2016 [BALKRISHNA P. TRIVEDI HUF] A.Y. 2008-09 - 2 - DATE OF HEARING 30/01/2020 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31/01/2020 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE A RE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD-3 (IN ITA NO.1225/AHD/2013) AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS)-5, AHMEDABAD IN OTHER TWO APPEALS. THE RELEVANT DETAI LS ARE TABULATED AS UNDER: ITA NOS. NAME OF ASSESSEE AY CIT/ CIT(A)S ORDER DATED AOS PENALTY ORDER DATED AOS ORDER UNDER SECTION 1225/AHD/13 BALKRISHNA P. TRIVEDI HUF 2008- 09 18.03.13 30.09.10 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) 1229/AHD/16 -DO- -DO- 01.02.2016 24.03.2014 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT 997/AHD/16 -DO- -DO- -DO- -DO- -DO- 2. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, THE LEA RNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY POINTED OUT THAT THE LEGAL CHALLENG E TO THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER S.2 63 OF THE ACT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE DECISION OF TH E CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF OTHER CO-OWNER NAMELY RIDDHISH B. TRIVEDI ITA NO. 1226/AHD/2013 ORDER DATED 17.01.2020 CONCERNING THE SAME LAND. IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE, WE TAKE NOTE OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL HEREUNDER UPHO LDING THE JURISDICTION UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT BY THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX: ITA NOS. 1225/AHD/13, 1229 & 997/AHD/2016 [BALKRISHNA P. TRIVEDI HUF] A.Y. 2008-09 - 3 - 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS. SECTION 263 OF THE ACT CONFERS POWER UPON THE PR.CIT/CIT TO CAL L FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS OF A PROCEEDING UNDER THE ACT AND REVIS E AND ORDER IF HE CONSIDERS THE SAME TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE PR.CIT CAN TAKE RECOURSE TO REVIS ION UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT WHERE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. IT IS WELL SETTLED THA T TWIN CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SPECIFIED SIMULTANEOUSLY. THE PR.CI T IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS PURPORTED TO ACT IN EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER S.2 63 OF THE ACT AND THEREBY HAS SOUGHT TO DISLODGE AND MODIFY THE ASSES SMENT ORDER OF THE AO PASSED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT. THE PR.CIT ES SENTIALLY OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS WRONGLY ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION UNDER S.54B OF THE ACT IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND W ITHOUT MAKING ANY REQUISITE INQUIRY ON THE FACTUAL ASPECTS. 5.1 IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PRE-REQ UISITES OF SECTION 54B OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND THERE IS NO CONTRAVENTION OF LAW IN THIS REGARD. CONTROVERSY HINGES AROUND AVAIL ABILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER S.54B OF THE ACT AGAINST LONG TERM CAPITAL GA IN EARNED ON SALE OF LAND. ON A PERUSAL OF 54B OF THE ACT, IT IS NOTICE D THAT SECTION 54B OF THE ACT IS DIVIDED INTO TWO PARTS. FIRST PART DEAL S WITH EXEMPTION OF CAPITAL GAINS FROM TRANSFER OF LAND (ORIGINAL ASSET ) USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE IN THE TWO YEARS IMMEDIATELY P RECEDING THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE. THE SECOND PART DEALS WITH THE MANNER OF UTILIZATION OF GAINS ARISING FROM TRANSFE R OF SUCH LAND USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. THE PR.CIT HAS IMPUGNED THE ELIGIBILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER S.54B OF THE ACT IN BOTH THE PARTS. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF LAND (WHICH IS BROADLY THE LEGISLATIVE EXPRESSION USED IN SECTION 54B OF THE A CT), THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS NEITHER AGRICULTURAL LAND NOR WAS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. THE LAND HAS BEEN ADMITTEDLY DECLARED AS FALLOW LAND ON WHICH NO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE IS PLAUSIBLE. THUS, AS PER THE CERTIFICATE OF TALATI AS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF, THE VIABILITY OF CARRYING OUT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY WAS QUITE DISMAL. WE ALS O FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED ANY WORTHWHILE AGRICULTUR AL INCOME IN THE EARLIER YEARS FROM SUCH A LARGE TRACK OF LAND (9286 SQ.MTR.). SOME EXPENSES VOUCHER PRODUCED FOR EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON TRACTOR DOES NOT INSPIRE ANY CONFIDENCE. SUCH MATERIAL WAS NOT P RODUCED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS WELL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ADDUCE ANY SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT THE LAND WAS SUBJECTED T O ANY SYSTEMATIC AGRICULTURAL OPERATION IN LAST TWO YEARS IMMEDIATEL Y PRECEDING THE DATE OF TRANSFER AS REQUIRED IN LAW INDEED. THE REPLY O F THE ASSESSEE AND EVIDENCE RELIED THEREUPON APPEARS TO BE COSMETIC. THE AO HAS FAILED TO MAKE ANY INQUIRY ON THIS VITAL ASPECT WHILE ADMITTI NG THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM SUMMARILY. THE PR.C IT IN OUR VIEW CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND APPLIED THE LAW IN PERSPECTIVE TO DRAW AN ADVERSE CONCLUSION ON ELIGIBILITY OF DEDUCT ION. WE SEE NO ERROR IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE PR.CIT TO HOLD THAT THE CLAIM UNDER S.54B OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ALLOWED WITHOUT FUL FILLMENT OF PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS. WE THUS DECLINE TO INTERFER E WITH THE REVISIONAL ORDER OF THE PR.CIT ON THIS SCORE. 5.2 NOTWITHSTANDING THAT CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER S .54B OF THE ACT IS FOUND TO BE IN CONTRAVENTION WITH LAW AND THEREFORE THE SECOND ASPECT ITA NOS. 1225/AHD/13, 1229 & 997/AHD/2016 [BALKRISHNA P. TRIVEDI HUF] A.Y. 2008-09 - 4 - OF THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT TO BE GONE INTO, WE WOULD HOWEVER DEAL WITH THE SECOND ASPECT OF CONTROVERSY AS WELL, FOR THE S AKE OF COMPLETENESS. 5.3 THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE TRANSFER AN AMOUNT OF RS.30,45,500/- FROM CAPITAL GAINS SAVING SCHEME TO CAPITAL GAIN DEPOSIT SCHEME ON SAME STIPULATIONS AND CLAIMS TO HAVE NOT DIVERTED T HE MONEY FOR THE PURPOSES OTHER THAN SPECIFIED UNDER S.54B(2) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IT IS THE ADMITTED POSITION THAT NO EVIDENCE IN THIS REGA RD WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ASSERTIONS BEING MADE. THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM WITHOUT LOOKING INTO THIS ASPECT WHICH HA S DIRECT BEARING ON MAINTAINABILITY OF DEDUCTION. THE PR.CIT, IN THE C IRCUMSTANCES, HAS RIGHTLY REMITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR REQUISITE VERIFICATION ACTION OF PR.CIT HAS SHUNNED PREJUDICE TO REVENUE WITHOUT ANY PERCEPTIBLE PREJUDICE TO ASSESSEE. WE SEE NO E RROR IN SUCH DIRECTION AND HENCE DECLINE TO INTERFERE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN I TA NO.1226/AHD/2013 IS DISMISSED. 3. IN PARITY, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING TH E JURISDICTION UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT IS DISMISSED IN THE CASE OF THE PARTNER CO-OWNER NAMELY BALKRISHNA P. TRIVEDI HUF AS WELL. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN I TA NO.1225/AHD/2013 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 997/AHD/2016 5. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.77,90,00 0/- CLAIMED U/S 54B OF THE ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,00,0 00/-CLAIMED U/S 54EC OF THE ACT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF BROKERAGE A MOUNTING TO RS.5,00,000/-. ITA NOS. 1225/AHD/13, 1229 & 997/AHD/2016 [BALKRISHNA P. TRIVEDI HUF] A.Y. 2008-09 - 5 - 6. GROUND NO.1 CONCERNS DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM MADE UNDER S.54B OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS B EEN EXAMINED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF OTHER CO-OWNER NAMELY RIDDHISH B. TRIVEDI VS. CIT ITA NO. 1226/AHD/2013 ORDER DATED 17.01.2020 7. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY POINTED O UT THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH I N THE CASE OF OTHER CO-OWNER AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY FRESH POINT TO SUPPORT THE AFORESAID GROUND. 8. IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN OTHER CO-OWNER NAMELY RIDDHISH B. TRIVEDI (SUPRA) AS REPRODUCED ABOVE IN PARA 2 (SUPRA) AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR AL LOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER S.54B OF THE ACT, GROUND NO.1 OF TH E ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 9. GROUND NO.2 CONCERNS DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50 LAKHS CLAIMED UNDER S.54EC OF THE ACT. AS POINTED OUT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME FOR ADJUDICATION IN THE CASE O F OTHER CO-OWNER NAMELY SUDHABEN BALKRISHNA TRIVEDI IN ITA NO.2658/AHD/2011 ORDER DATED 17.08.2017 WHEREIN THE ISSUE WAS ADJUDICATED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN FOLLOWING TERMS: 3. TO ADJUDICATE ON THIS GRIEVANCE, ONLY A FEW MAT ERIAL FACTS NEED TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE QUALIFY ING INVESTMENTS IN REC BONDS, AMOUNTING TO RS.50,00,000/- EACH, ON 31. 03.2007 AND 31.10.2007, SO AS TO CLAIM DEDUCTIONS UNDER SECTION 54EC. THE ASSESSING OFFICE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT AS PER SECTI ON 54EC, THERE IS A CAP OF RS.50,00,000/- ANYTIME WITHIN SIX MONTHS FRO M THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY AND, ACCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOW ED THE AMOUNT OF RS.50,00,000/-. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MA TTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO REVERSED THE ACTION O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHILE DOING SO, LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED A S FOLLOWS:- 6. THE THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM MADE U/S. 54EC OF RS.50,00,000/-. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THE APPELLANT HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.50,00,000/- ON 31.03.2007 ITA NOS. 1225/AHD/13, 1229 & 997/AHD/2016 [BALKRISHNA P. TRIVEDI HUF] A.Y. 2008-09 - 6 - AND RS.50,00,000/- ON 31.10.2007 IN RFC BOND U/S. 5 4EC OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MENTIONED IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER THAT THERE IS A CAP OF RS.50,00,000/- IN SEC. 54EC OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS THEREFORE ALLOWED CLAIM OF IN VESTMENT OF RS.50,00,000/- MADE ON 31.10.2007 AND HAS NOT ALLOW ED CLAIM OF INVESTMENT OF RS.50,00,000/- MADE ON 31.03.2007. TH E LEARNED A.R. HAS ARGUED BEFORE ME THAT THE CAP IS ON INVEST MENT IS MADE APPLICABLE FOR INVESTMENT MADE ON OR AFTER 01.04.20 07. FURTHER, THE CAP IS FOR RS.50,00,000/- DURING ANY FINANCIAL YEAR. THE ABOVE PROVISION IS APPLICABLE WITH RESPECT TO INVES TMENT MADE ON OR AFTER 01.04.2007 ONLY. FURTHER THE CEILING LIMIT OF RS.50,00,000/- IS FOR INVESTMENT IN FINANCIAL YEAR ONLY. THE CEILING LIMIT IS NOT FOR ASSESSEE OR NOT FOR TOTAL DEDUCTION ELIGIBLE UNDER ABOVE SECTION. THEREFORE THE INTERPR ETATION WOULD BE THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN MAKE INVESTMENT OF RS.50,0 0,000/- IN ONE FINANCIAL YEAR. IF THE PERIOD OF INVESTMENT AVA ILABLE TO ASSESSEE EXTENDS IN TWO FINANCIAL YEARS, THEN THE A SSESSEE CAN MAKE INVESTMENT OF RS.50,00,000/- EACH IN BOTH FINA NCIAL YEARS AND CAN CLAIM DEDUCTION ACCORDINGLY. THE LEARNED A. R. HAS ALSO RELIED ON CIRCULAR NO.359 DATE 10.05.1983. THE COPY OF CIRCULAR IS FILLED BEFORE ME. PARAGRAPH-2 OF THE ABOVE CIRCU LAR READS AS UNDER: 'ON CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER IN CONSULTATION WIT H MINISTRY OF LAW, IT IS FELT THAT THE FOREGOING INTE RPRETATION WOULD GO AGAINST THE PURPOSE AND SPIRIT OF THE SECT ION. AS THE SECTION CONTEMPLATES INVESTMENT OF THE NET CONSIDERATION IN SPECIFIED ASSET FOR A MINIMUM PERI OD AND AS EARNEST MONEY OR ADVANCE IS A PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION, THE BOARD HAVE DECIDED THAT IF THE A SSESSEE INVEST THE EARNEST MONEY OR THE ADVANCE RECEIVED IN SPECIFIED ASSET BEFORE THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF ASSE T, THE AMOUNT SO INVESTED WILL QUALIFY FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961.' 7. THE A.R. HAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE INVES TMENT CAN BE MADE BEFORE THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION. THOUGH THE CIRCULAR IS ISSUED FOR SECTION 54E, THE SAME SHOULD BE APPLIED TO INVESTMENT U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT AS THE P ROVISIONS OF BOTH THE SECTIONS ARE SAME. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON PERUSAL OF PROVISIONS U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT AND CIRC ULAR IT IS CLARIFIED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 54EC I.E. WITHIN 6 MONTHS (I.E. 08.06.2007) OF TRANSFER APPELLANT HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN REC BONDS AND PROV ISION FOR CEILING LIMIT IS EFFECTIVE W.E.F. 01.04.2007 AND BE FORE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 50,00,000/- ON 31.03.2007. 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED A.R. THE AMENDMENT IS MADE W.E.F. 01.04.2007 AND THEREFORE T HE SAME CANNOT BE APPLIED TO INVESTMENT MADE BEFORE 01.04.2 007. THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT OF RS.50,00,000/- ON 31.03.2007 IS THEREFORE, NOT COVERED BY THE AMENDME NT. FURTHER, THE LIMIT IS FOR FINANCIAL YEAR ONLY AND IS NOT PER ASSESSEE NOR PER DEDUCTION. THEREFORE, THE INVESTMENT MADE ON 31 .03.2007 IS ITA NOS. 1225/AHD/13, 1229 & 997/AHD/2016 [BALKRISHNA P. TRIVEDI HUF] A.Y. 2008-09 - 7 - ALLOWABLE IN VIEW OF ABOVE CIRCULAR. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO FU RTHER ALLOW THE DEDUCTION OF RS.50,00,000/- MADE ON 31.03.2007 SUBJ ECT TO VERIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS FOR PROOF OF INVESTMENT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE RELIEF SO GRANTED BY THE LEARNE D CIT(A), THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 6. WE SEE NO REASONS TO INTERFERE IN THE STAND OF T HE LEARNED CIT(A). AS HE RIGHTLY OBSERVES, THE LIMIT ON INVES TMENT IN QUALIFYING ASSETS IS WITH RESPECT TO A FINANCIAL YEAR BUT THEN THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAIN TO TWO DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEARS. THE RESTRICTION, AS SUCH, DOES NOT COME INTO PLAY. WE UPHOLD THE WELL REASONED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS POINT AS WELL AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 10. GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ACCORDI NGLY ALLOWED. 11. GROUND NO.3 CONCERNS DISALLOWANCE OF BROKERAGE. AS POINTED OUT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 651/AHD/2016 ORDER DATED 17.01.2020. IN PARITY, THE ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.997/AHD/2016 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO. 1229/AHD/2016 (REVENUES APPEAL) 13. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE REA D AS UNDER: (1) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ADMITTING VARIOUS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE AFFORDED THE A O AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER HIS COMMENTS ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUCH AS 7/12 UTTARA, HAK PATRAK IN FORM NO.6, DECLARATION DATED 29.03.19 71 ETC., WHICH WERE NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS. (2) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DIRECTING THE AO TO TREAT THE GAIN ON TRANSFER OF LAND AS LTCG INSTE AD OF STCG ON THE BASIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ADMITTED IN CONTRAVENTIO N OF RULE 46A. ITA NOS. 1225/AHD/13, 1229 & 997/AHD/2016 [BALKRISHNA P. TRIVEDI HUF] A.Y. 2008-09 - 8 - (3) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW EXEMPTION OF RS.50,00,000/- U/S 54EC OF TH E ACT RS.51,29,236/- U/S 54F OF THE ACT. 14. GROUND NO.1 OF REVENUES APPEAL CONCERNS CONTRA VENTION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. TH E GRIEVANCE HAS BEARING WITH THE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND NO.2 OF THE REV ENUES APPEAL AND THEREFORE IS DEALT WITH TOGETHER. 15. AS PER GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE AO IN HOLDING THE CA PITAL GAINS ARISING FROM THE SALE OF LAND TO BE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE HUF. IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT I N THE ABSENCE OF RELEVANT EVIDENCES AND DETAILS, THE OWNERSHIP OF TH E ASSESE HUF IN THE PROPERTY IS NOT ESTABLISHED. IN THE COURSE OF HEAR ING, THE CIT(A) HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THE SALE DEED IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE H UF IS ONE OF THE CO-SELLER, THE TITLE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED A ND OTHER DOCUMENTS SHOWING THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE HUF. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED TO COPY OF 7/12 SHOWING LAND AND HAK PATRAK IN FORM NO.6 ISSUED BY TALATI WHEREIN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HUF AS A JOINT OWNER APPEA R THE CERTIFICATE IN FORM NO.6 HAS BEEN ISSUED ON 07.12.2000. THEREFORE , AT THE TIME OF SALE, THE ASSET IS SURELY A LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ASSET. THE CIT(A) HAS TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF SUCH DOCUMENT ISSUED BY AN INDE PENDENT LOCAL AUTHORITY TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT SEE ANY SERIOUS BREACH OF VIOLATION OF RULE 46A FOR ALLEGED DELINQUENCY IN NOT REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE AO I N RELATION TO SUCH CERTIFICATE. THE HOLDING OF ASSET AS LONG TERM ASS ET IS PATENT AND OBVIOUS. THE CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE AS UNDER: 3.4. THE FIRST GROUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS R EGARDING TREATING OF RS.3,80,50,000/-BEING SALE VALUE OF PROPERTY AS SHO RT TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE: DANILIMDA, SURVEY NO.74, CITY AHMEDABAD. THE LAND WAS NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND AND CLAIMED TO B E HELD IN JOINT OWNERSHIP WITH RADHESHYAM PURSHOTTARNDAS HUF, SUDHA BALKRISHNA ITA NOS. 1225/AHD/13, 1229 & 997/AHD/2016 [BALKRISHNA P. TRIVEDI HUF] A.Y. 2008-09 - 9 - TRIVEDI AND RIDHEESH BALKRISHNA TRIVEDI. THE ASSESS EE HAS CLAIMED OWNERSHIP OF THIS LAND PRIOR TO 1.4.1981. IN THE OR DER U/S.263 OF THE ACT, THE CIT HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CALL FOR THE REVENUE RECORDS AND BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RE LEVANT PERIOD BY WHICH THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND PASSED ON TWO HUFS I.E. ASSESSEE HUF AND RADHESHYAM P. TRIVEDI, HUF AND ALSO EXAMINED THE DE CLARATION DTD.29.3.1971 TO ASCERTAIN THE OWNERSHIP RIGHT OF T HE ASSESSEE HUF ON THE SOLD OUT LAND. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, THE AO WAS CALLED FOR VARIOUS DETAILS FROM THE ASSESSEE, THE A O HAS OF THE OPINION THAT IN ABSENCE OF RELEVANT EVIDENCES AND DETAILS T HE OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE WITH DATE IS NOT ESTABLISHED. THEREFORE, T HE AO HAS CONSIDERED THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE SALE OF LAND AS SHORT T ERM CAPITAL GAIN AND COST OF THE ACQUISITION IS TAKEN AT RS.NIL. 3.5. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLAN T HAS SUBMITTED FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS THAT IN CONNECTION WITH THE C LAIM OF OWNERSHIP. 1. THE SALE DEED IS EXECUTED BY BALKRISHNA P. T RIVEDI, HUF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH PROVES THAT SHRI BALKRISHNA P. TRIVEDI HUF IS THE OWNER OF THE LAND. 2. TITLE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY KILOL VINO D SHELAT, ADVOCATE ON 15.2.2001 AND IN THE SAID TITLE REPORT COMPLETE HISTORY OF LAND AT SURVEY NO.74 IS MENTIONED PRIOR TO 1946. 3. THE LAND WAS SOLD TO NEELDEEP MALLS DEVELOPERS P VT. LTD. AND THE SAID PARTY HAS ALSO OBTAINED TITLE CLEARANC E CERTIFICATE FROM SANGHI & CO., ADVOCATE SOLICITOR AND NOTARY. 4. REVENUE RECORDS IN 7/12 9ENTRY NO.2670) SHOWS T HE OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE IN LAND AT SURVEY NO.74. 5. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND WAS OWNED PRIOR TO 1946 BY MADHURADAS MANSUKHRAM, THE GRANT FATHER OF SHRI BALKRISHNABHAI. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS ENCLOSED FORM NO.6 (HAK PATRAK) IN PROOF OF THE SAI D OWNERSHIP. 6. DECLARATION OF SUDHABEN TRIVEDI DTD. 3.1.2000 IN WHICH THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND OF SHRIB.P. TRIVEDI IS CO NFIRMED. 7. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE DECLARATION DTD. 29. 3.1971 IT IS CONFIRMED BY SHRI BALKRISHNA P. TRIVEDI ABOUT THE P ROPERTIES RECEIVED BY HIM ON PARTIAL PARTITION OF PROPERTIES OF PURSHOTTAMDAS MADHURADAS. 8. THE SALE PRICE IS CREDITED IN BANK ACCOUNT OF B. P, TRIVEDI, HUF WITH ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE. THUS, THE ASSES SEE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. 3.6. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE EVI DENCES SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT CLEARLY PROVES THAT THE APPELLANT WAS OWNER OF ABOVE ITA NOS. 1225/AHD/13, 1229 & 997/AHD/2016 [BALKRISHNA P. TRIVEDI HUF] A.Y. 2008-09 - 10 - LAND FROM 1971 AND THEREFORE CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE O F LAND SHOULD BE TAKEN AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND WHILE COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, THE VALUE SHOULD BE TAKEN AS 1.4.1981 AND IND EXATION SHOULD BE GIVEN AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 3.7 THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND DETAILS FILED BY HIM TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER OF THE SAID LAND FROM 1971. THE APPELLANT HAS MAINLY RELIED UPON THE DECL ARATION OF SUDHA B. TRIVEDI DID. 30.1.2000 AND EARLIER DECLARATION DTD. 29.3.1971. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON HAK PATRAK IN FORM NO.6. THE APPEL LANT HAS ALSO FILED TITLE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE FROM KILOL VINOD SHELAT , ADVOCATE WHEREIN THE HISTORY OF THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND IS MENTION ED IN DETAIL. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FURNISHED 7/12 DTD. 30.4.1971 WH ICH SHOWS THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND IN THE NAME OF THE B.P. TRIVE DI, HUF. THE AO HAS DID NOT ACCEPT THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION ON THE GR OUND THAT RELEVANT DETAILS PROVING THE OWNERSHIP OF ASSESSEE FORM 1971 IS NOT FURNISHED. THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION IS THAT HE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALS O FURNISHED A CERTIFICATE IN THIS REGARD. CONSIDERING ALL THESE D ETAILS AND SUBMISSION, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS FOUND TO BE CORR ECT. ALL THESE DETAILS SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT IS OWNER OF THE LAND FROM 1971. THEREFORE, INCOME BY WAY OF SALE OF THIS LAND SHOULD BE TREATE D AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN INSTEAD OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND BENEFIT OF INDEXATION FROM 1.4.1981 IS ALSO AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT. H ENCE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY TREATING INCOME FROM SALE OF LAND AS STCG IS DELETED AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE THE LTCG AFTER GIVING BENEFIT OF INDEXATION. 16. AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, THE CIT(A), IN OUR VIEW, H AS APPRECIATED THE FACTS IN PERSPECTIVE AND HELD THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON SALE OF LAND TO BE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF T HE ASSESSEE HUF. WE DO NOT SEE ANY ERROR IN THE PROCESS OF REASONING ADOPTED BY THE CIT(A) WHILE GRANTING THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 17. GROUND NO.3 CONCERNS DEDUCTION UNDER S.54EC & 5 4F OF THE ACT. 18. THE CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED BOTH THE ISSUES IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS ARE REPRODUCED HER EUNDER: 6.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND S UBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE NEXT GROUND IS REGARDING DENIAL OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.L CRORE U/S.54EC OF T HE ACT. IN THE ORDER U/S.263 OF THE ACT. THE CIT HAS HELD THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS REQUIRED TO ITA NOS. 1225/AHD/13, 1229 & 997/AHD/2016 [BALKRISHNA P. TRIVEDI HUF] A.Y. 2008-09 - 11 - INVEST IN THE SPECIFIED ASSET WITHIN A PERIOD OF SI X MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ASSET. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DATE OF TRANSFER IS 8.6.2007 THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO INV EST IN THE SPECIFIED ASSET ON OR BEFORE 8!H DECEMBER, 2007 AND THE MAXIM UM AMOUNT WAS TO BE FOR RS.50 LAKHS. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF AHMED ABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. DAXABEN R. PATEL, 52 SOT 212 (AHME DABAD) THE CIT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSE WAS ENTITLE ONL Y TO THE DEDUCTION OF RS.50 LAKHS U/S.54EC OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF RS.L CRORE MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE U/S.54EC OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SALE OF LAND IS T REATED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN, THEREFORE, EXEMPTION U/S.54EC OF THE ACT IS NOT ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 6.4. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLAN T HAS CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO BAR IN THE LAW THAT ASSESSEE CAN M AKE THIS INVESTMENT ONLY ONCE IN LIFE TIME. IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED THA T ONLY CONDITION TO BE COMPLIED WITH IS WITHIN A F.Y. INVESTMENT SHOULD NO T EXCEED RS.50 LAKHS AND THERE IS ALSO NO RESTRICTION THAT DEDUCTION OF INVESTMENT MADE IN ANYONE F.Y. CAN ONLY BE SET OFF AGAINST CAPITAL GAI N ARISING FROM ANY ONE TRANSACTION. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER CONTENDE D THAT ALL THE INVESTMENT MADE IN NOTIFIED BONDS CAN BE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S.54EC OF THE ACT AGAINST CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FR OM ANYONE TRANSACTION SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE SAME IS MADE WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.50 LAKHS ON 3TL MARCH, 2007 WHICH IS BEFORE THE AMENDMENT WHICH IS APPLICABLE FROM LST APRIL, 2007 AND THE SAID INVEST MENT IS MADE OUT OF ADVANCE MONEY OF SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH IS AS PER CIRCULAR NO.359 DTD. 10.5.1983 THE APPELLANT IS ALSO RELIED UPON FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS:- A. ASPI JINWALA V/S ACIT BARODA, AHMEDABAD ITAT 20 TAXMAN.COM75. B. CIT V/S C. JAICHANDER MADRAS HIGH COURT-2014(LL) EMI54. DT.15.09.2014. C. SMT. SHRIRAM INDUBAL V/S ITO CHENAI TRIBUNAL(201 3) 32 TAXMAN.COM 118 D. ITO V/S RANIA FALEIRO, PANAJI TRIBUNAL(2013) 33 TAXMAN.COM 611 6.5. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE CONDITIONS OF TH E APPELLANT ARE CONSIDERED. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPE LLANT HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN THE NOTIFIED BONDS ON 31F MARCH, 2007 AND 3TR OCTOBER, 2007 AMOUNTING TO RS.50 LAKHS EACH ON RESPECTIVE DA TES. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THIS INVESTMENT OF RS.L CRORE AS DEDUCT ION U/S.54EC OF THE ACT AGAINST THE SALE OF LAND DURING THE YEAR. THE A O HAS DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE TR ANSACTION OF SALE OF LAND IS TREATED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN THEREFOR E EXEMPTION U/S.54EC OF THE ACT IS NOT ALLOWABLE. AS DISCUSSED IN THE PR ECEDING PARAS THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF LAND IS TREATED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND IS OF THE HUF FROM 1971, THER EFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF ENTIRE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEE U/S.54EC OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. NOW THE SECOND QUESTION A RISES WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.50 LAKHS W HICH WAS ENLISTED ON 31ST MARCH, 2007, BEFORE THE SALE OF THE LAND. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION AND CERTAIN JUDGMENT S WHEREIN IT IS HELD ITA NOS. 1225/AHD/13, 1229 & 997/AHD/2016 [BALKRISHNA P. TRIVEDI HUF] A.Y. 2008-09 - 12 - THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/'S.54 EC OF THE ACT EXCEEDING RS.50 LAKHS IF IT IS MADE WITHIN SIX MONT HS OF TRANSFER. THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIFFERENT. HE RE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.50 LAKHS BEFORE THE DATE OF S ALE OF LAND AND RS.50 LAKHS WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF DATE OF SALE OF LA ND. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT CLEARLY STATES THAT THE INVESTMENT IN SPECIFIED BONDS IS TO BE MADE WITHIN A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSFER. THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS CLEAR. IT WAS NOT DESIRED BY THEM TO GIVE THE EXEMPTION U/S.54EC OF T HE ACT EVEN INVESTMENT MADE BEFORE THE TRANSFER OF THE LONG TER M CAPITAL ASSET. IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON THE CIRCU LAR NO.359 DTD. 10.5.1983 WHICH SAYS THAT IF THE ASSESSEE INVESTS T HE EARNEST MONEY OR THE ADVANCE RECEIVED IN A SPECIFIED ASSETS BEFORE T HE DATE OF TRANSFER OF ASSET, THE AMOUNT SO INVESTED WILL QUALIFY FOR EXEM PTION U/S.54E OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE W ORDING OF SECTION 54E AND 54EC ARE SAME THEREFORE, THE SAID CIRCULAR SHOULD ALSO MAKE APPLICABLE FOR INVESTMENT MADE OUT OF BANAKHAT MONE Y U/S.54ECOF THE ACT. 6.6. IN THE CASE OF SMT. DAXABEN R. PATEL (SUPRA) T HE HON'BLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT INVESTMENT IN SPECIFIED BOND IS TO BE MADE WITHIN A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DA TE OF SUCH TRANSFER AND INVESTMENT MADE BEFORE THE DATE OF SALE ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.54EC OF THE ACT. FURTHER WHILE HOLDIN G THE SAME THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE CIRCULAR N O.359 DTD. 10.5.1983. THE ABOVE CITED DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT IS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.54EC OF THE ACT FOR RS.50 LAKHS O NLY. HENCE THE GROUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 7.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND S UBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE NEXT GROUND IS REGARDING THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.54F OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS DI SALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXEMPTION IS AVAILABLE ON TRANSFER OF LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET WHEREAS THE CAP ITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL ASSET AND AS SUCH THE EXEMPTION IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE . 7.4. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT OF RS.51,29,236/- AGAINST ACTUAL INVESTMENT OF RS.65 L AKHS. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE DEPOSIT OF RS.1,25,00,000/- IN CAPITAL GAIN SC HEME ACCOUNT BEFORE 31ST JULY, 2008 WHICH IS THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT SHOWING THE DEPOSIT IN CAPITAL GAIN SCHEME. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED AS IT IS ALREADY HELD THAT SALE OF THE LAND IS LONG TERM CAP ITAL GAIN INSTEAD OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS HELD IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET, T HE DEDUCTION U/S.54F IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,25,00,000/-BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN AS PRESCRIBED IN THE SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT, H E IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE ITA NOS. 1225/AHD/13, 1229 & 997/AHD/2016 [BALKRISHNA P. TRIVEDI HUF] A.Y. 2008-09 - 13 - DEDUCTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT. HENCE THE DISALLOWANC E MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 19. WE FIND THAT THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE CIT(A) IS ON LEGALLY SOUND BASIS AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO FAILED TO REBUT THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) IN ASSERTIVE MANNER. 20. GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ALSO DIS MISSED. 21. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN I TA NO. 1229/AHD/2016 IS DISMISSED. 22. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1225/AHD/2013 IS DISMISSED AND IN ITA NO.997/AHD /2016 IS PARTLY ALLOWED WHEREAS REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1229/AH D/2016 IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (PRADIP KUMAR K EDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 31/01/2020 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA !'#' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- &. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE (. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. ,- / CIT (A) /. 012 33*+4 *+#4 56) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 7. 289 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 4 /5 *+#4 56) THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31/01/202 0