D.C.I.T Cir - 6,kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s Kilburn Engineering Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 1987/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9330 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S BISWAS
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL SINGHI
• Keywords: Capital asset; Condonation of delay; Revised return
• Section: 54B; 139(5); 139

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.1987/KOL/2013-M/S. KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD. A.Y.2009-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH A KOL KATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM & SHRI WAS EEM AHMED, AM ] ITA NO.1987/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-6, -VERSUS- M/S. KILBURN ENGINEE RING LTD. KOLKATA KOLKATA (PAN:AABCK 3421 H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI R.S.BISWAS, CIT FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI SUNIL SINGHI, AR DATE OF HEARING : 13.02.2017. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.03.2017. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2013 OF CIT(A)-VI, KOLKATA RELATING TO A.Y.2009-10. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS FOLLOWS :- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O AMOUNTING TO RS 10,00,00,000/- U/S 54G(2) OF THE IT ACT,1961. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 54G OF THE IT ACT EVEN WHEN THE DEPOS IT HAS NOT BEEN MADE WITHIN THE DUE TIME AS PROVIDED IN THE ACT. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR LEAVE TO ADD, DELE TE OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. THERE IS A DELAY OF ABOUT 12 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL HAS BEEN EXPLAINED IN AN AFFIDAVI T FILED BEFORE AS ONE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DELAY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE HAS NO OBJECTION FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL. KEEPING IN M IND THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND THE SUBMIS SIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. 2 ITA NO.1987/KOL/2013-M/S. KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD. A.Y.2009-10 4. AS FAR AS THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS CONCERNED, THE SAME RELATES TO ELIGIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEES FOR E XEMPTION U/S 54G OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT) IN RESPECT OF A SUM OF RS.10 CRORES . SEC.54G OF THE ACT READS AS FOLLOWS: EXEMPTION OF CAPITAL GAINS ON TRANSFER OF ASSETS I N CASES OF SHIFTING OF INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FROM URBAN AREA. 54G. (1) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2), WHERE THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING MACHINE RY OR PLANT OR BUILDING OR LAND OR ANY RIGHTS IN BUILDING OR LAND USED FOR THE PURPOSE S OF THE BUSINESS OF AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING SITUATE IN AN URBAN AREA, EFFECTED IN T HE COURSE OF, OR IN CONSEQUENCE OF, THE SHIFTING OF SUCH INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING (HEREAF TER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE ORIGINAL ASSET) TO ANY AREA (OTHER THAN AN URBAN AR EA) AND THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE OR THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, ( A ) PURCHASED NEW MACHINERY OR PLANT FOR THE PURPOSE S OF BUSINESS OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IN THE AREA TO WHICH THE SAI D UNDERTAKING IS SHIFTED ; ( B ) ACQUIRED BUILDING OR LAND OR CONSTRUCTED BUILDIN G FOR THE PURPOSES OF HIS BUSINESS IN THE SAID AREA ; ( C ) SHIFTED THE ORIGINAL ASSET AND TRANSFERRED THE E STABLISHMENT OF SUCH UNDERTAKING TO SUCH AREA; AND ( D ) INCURRED EXPENSES ON SUCH OTHER PURPOSE AS MAY B E SPECIFIED IN A SCHEME FRAMED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSES O F THIS SECTION, THEN, INSTEAD OF THE CAPITAL GAIN BEING CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, IT SHALL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THAT IS TO SAY, ( I ) IF THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN IS GREATER THA N THE COST AND EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO ALL OR ANY OF THE PURPOSES MENTIONED IN CLAUSES ( A ) TO ( D ) (SUCH COST AND EXPENSES BEING HEREAFTER IN THIS S ECTION REFERRED TO AS THE NEW ASSET), THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF TH E CAPITAL GAIN AND THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET SHALL BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 AS THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR ; AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING IN RESPECT OF THE NEW ASSET ANY CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM ITS TRANSFER WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS OF ITS BEING PURCHASED, ACQUIRED, CONSTRUCTED OR TRANSFERR ED, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COST SHALL BE NIL ; OR ( II ) IF THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN IS EQUAL TO, O R LESS THAN, THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET, THE CAPITAL GAIN SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UN DER SECTION 45 ; AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING IN RESPECT OF THE NEW ASSE T ANY CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM ITS TRANSFER WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS OF ITS BEING PURCHASED, ACQUIRED, CONSTRUCTED OR TRANSFERRED, AS THE CASE M AY BE, THE COST SHALL BE REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN. EXPLANATION. IN THIS SUB-SECTION, 'URBAN AREA' MEANS ANY SUCH A REA WITHIN THE LIMITS OF A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OR MUNICIPALITY AS THE C ENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, HAVING 3 ITA NO.1987/KOL/2013-M/S. KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD. A.Y.2009-10 REGARD TO THE POPULATION, CONCENTRATION OF INDUSTRI ES, NEED FOR PROPER PLANNING OF THE AREA AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS, BY GENERAL OR SPEC IAL ORDER 39 , DECLARE TO BE AN URBAN AREA FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION. (2) THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN WHICH IS NOT APPROPR IATED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE COST AND EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO ALL OR AN Y OF THE PURPOSES MENTIONED IN CLAUSES ( A ) TO ( D ) OF SUB-SECTION (1) WITHIN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DAT E ON WHICH THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET TOOK PLACE, OR WHICH IS NOT UTILISED BY HIM FOR ALL OR ANY OF THE PURPOSES AFORESAID BEFORE THE DATE OF FURNIS HING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 , SHALL BE DEPOSITED BY HIM BEFORE FURNISHING SUCH RETURN [SUCH DEPOSIT BEING MADE IN ANY CASE NOT LATER THAN THE D UE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 ] IN AN ACCOUNT IN ANY SUCH BANK OR INSTITUTION AS MAY B E SPECIFIED IN, AND UTILISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, ANY SCHEME 40 WHICH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, FRAME IN THIS BEHALF AND S UCH RETURN SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY PROOF OF SUCH DEPOSIT ; AND, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SU B-SECTION (1), THE AMOUNT, IF ANY, ALREADY UTILISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL OR ANY OF THE PURPOSES AFORESAID TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT, SO DEPOSITED SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET : PROVIDED THAT IF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED UNDER THIS SUB-SECTIO N IS NOT UTILISED WHOLLY OR PARTLY FOR ALL OR ANY OF THE PURPOSES MENTIONED IN CLAUSES ( A ) TO ( D ) OF SUB-SECTION (1) WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN THAT SUB-SECTION, TH EN, ( I ) THE AMOUNT NOT SO UTILISED SHALL BE CHARGED UNDE R SECTION 45 AS THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE PERIOD OF THREE Y EARS FROM THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET EXPIRES ; AND ( II ) THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW SUCH AMOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME AFORESAID. 5. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE'S IN DUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING WAS SITUATED AT BHANDUP, MUMBAI. UNDER A SCHEME TO SHIFT ITS FACTOR Y FROM MUMBAI, AN URBAN AREA, TO ANOTHER AREA WHICH IS NOT AN URBAN AREA, THE AS SESSEE SOLD ITS LAND & BUILDING AT BHANDUP, MUMBAI TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTR UCTURE LTD.(HDIL), UNDER TWO AGREEMENTS DT. 08.11.2007 & DT. 30.01.2009 FOR A CO NSIDERATION OF RS. 115 CRORES. THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS PAYABLE BY HDIL IN INSTA LMENTS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (LTCG) OF RS.81,57,21,820 RE SULTED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF THE PROPERTY AT BHANDHUP AND THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITA L ASSET HAD TAKEN PLACE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO AY 2009-10. TO CLAIM EXE MPTION U/S.54G OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS LAID DOW N IN SEC.54G(1) OF THE ACT BY SPENDING THE CAPITAL GAIN FOR THE PURPOSES SET OUT IN SEC.54G(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS A TIME FRAME OF THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SE C.54G(1) OF THE ACT. SECTION 4 ITA NO.1987/KOL/2013-M/S. KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD. A.Y.2009-10 54G(2) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO SPEND THE CAPITAL GAIN IN THE MANNER LAID DOWN IN SEC.54G(1) OF THE A CT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT AY IN WHICH THE CAPITAL GAIN AROSE, HE HAS TO DEPOSIT THE UNUTILIZED FOR ALL OR ANY OF THE PURPOSES MENTIONED IN SEC.54G (1) OF THE ACT, IN AN ACCOUNT IN ANY SUCH BANK OR INSTITUTION AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN, AND UTILISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, ANY SCHEME WHICH THE CENTRAL GO VERNMENT MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, FRAME IN THIS BEHALF AND SUCH RETURN SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY PROOF OF SUCH DEPOSIT. SUCH DEPOSIT OF UNUTILIZED CAPITAL GAIN HAS TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. SECTION 54G(2) FURTHER PROVIDES THAT S UCH DEPOSIT SHOULD BE MADE IN ANY CASE NOT LATER THAN THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. SECTION 139 OF THE ACT HAS TWO TIME LIMIT FOR FILING RETURN OF INCOME. THE FIRST TIME LIMIT IS ONE LAID DOWN IN SEC.139(1) OF THE ACT OF DUE DATEFOR FILI NG RETURN OF INCOME. SUCH DUE DATE IN THIS CASE IS 30.9.2009. THERE IS ANOTHER DATE G IVEN FOR FILING REVISED RETURN OF INCOME IN SEC.139(5) OF THE ACT, WHICH LAYS DOWN TH AT IF ANY PERSON, HAVING FURNISHED A RETURN UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SEC.139 OF THE AC T, DISCOVERS ANY OMISSION OR ANY WRONG STATEMENT THEREIN, HE MAY FURNISH A REVISED R ETURN AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. THE PERIOD O F ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT AY WOULD, IN THE PRESENT CASE, BE 31.3.201 1. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REVISED RETURN IN THIS CASE ON 28.10.2010. 6. HDIL PAID THE FOLLOWING SUMS TOWARDS SALE CONSI DERATION: 28.01.2009 RS.20,00,00,000 9.7.2009 RS.10,00,00,000 20.8.2009 RS.10,00,00,000 7.9.2009 RS.10,00,00,000 21.10.2009 RS.10,00,00,000 20.11.2009 RS.10,00,00,000 11.12.2009 RS. 8,50,00,000 RS.78,50,00,000 5 ITA NO.1987/KOL/2013-M/S. KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD. A.Y.2009-10 7. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.54G(1) OF TH E ACT ON A SUM OF RS.35,61,43,054. THE AO ALLOWED EXEMPTION U/S.54G( 1) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.25,61,43,054/-. THE DISPUTE IN THIS APPEAL IS W ITH REGARD TO ELIGIBILITY OF EXEMPTION ON DEPOSIT OF UNUTILIZED CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.10,00, 00,000 THAT WAS DEPOSITED IN A SPECIFIED ACCOUNT AS LAID DOWN IN SEC.54G(2) OF THE ACT ON 30.3.2010 BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THAT THE FIRST PART OF SEC.54G (2) GIVES TIME LIMIT FOR MAKING INVESTMENT UPTO THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139 OF THE ACT WHICH INCLUDES BOTH SEC.139(1) OF THE ACT AND SEC.139(5) OF THE ACT. THE SECOND PART OF SEC.54G(2) HOWEVER ADDS A RIDER THAT SUCH DEPOSIT BEING MADE IN ANY CASE NOT LATER THAN THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139. IF T HE TIME LIMIT LAID DOWN IN THE FIRST PART IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT VIZ., TIME LIMIT U/S.139 OF THE ACT WHICH INCLUDES BOTH SEC.139(1) & 139(5) OF THE ACT, THAN THE DEPOSIT OF RS.10 CRORES BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SPECIFIED ACCOUNT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/ S.54G OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE TIME LIMIT LAID DOWN IN SEC.139(5) OF THE ACT WAS 31.3.2 011 AND THE DEPOSIT OF RS.10 CRORES WAS MADE ON 30.3.2010. IF THE TIME LIMIT LAID DOWN IN THE SECOND PART IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT VIZ., SEC.139(1) OF THE ACT WHICH IS 30.9.2 009 IN THE PRESENT CASE, THAN THE DEPOSIT OF RS.10 CRORES BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SPEC IFIED ACCOUNT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.54G OF THE ACT AS IT WAS MADE BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT. 8. THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED THE SECOND PART O F SEC.54G(2) AND DENIED EXEMPTION U/S.54G OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.10,00,00,000/-. BEFORE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE ORIGINAL RETUR N THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED AN EXEMPTION OF RS. 25,61,43,054/- AND ENHANCED THE SA ME TO RS. 35,61,43,054/- AFTER DEPOSITING RS. 10,00,00,000/- IN CAPITAL GAIN SCHEM E ACCOUNT ON 30.03.2010 AND FILED A REVISED RETURN U/S 139 OF THE ACT ON 28.10. 2010 CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 54G OF THE ACT AND THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THAT REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW AND HAVE ALLOWED DEDUCTION AS CLAIMED THEREIN. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS SIMILAR TO THE CASE ALREADY BEEN DECIDED B Y ITAT, 'A' BENCH, KOLKATA VIDE CONSOLIDATED ORDER IN THE CASE OF CHANCHAL KUMAR SI RCAR V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD- 6 ITA NO.1987/KOL/2013-M/S. KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD. A.Y.2009-10 32(L), KOLKATA (I.TA NOS. 1146/KOI/2011)AND CHAPAL SIRCAR V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-32(1), KOLKATA(ITA NOS. 1147/KOL/2011). IN THA T CASE, THE DATE OF TRANSFER WAS HENCE FOR THE PURPOSES OF CAPITAL GAINS TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET WAS COMPLETED ON 02.07.2004 AND ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT WITH NA BARD ON OR AFTER 02.01.2005 I.E. AFTER SIX MONTHS AND THEREFORE THE AO HELD THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT. THE APPELLATE AUTHO RITY FOUND THAT THOUGH THE TRANSFER HAD TAKEN PLACE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AT A LATER POINT OF TIME AND THAT WITHIN O NE MONTH OF THE RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION THE DEPOSIT INTO SPECIFIED ACCOUNT WA S MADE. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FOR MAK ING DEPOSIT U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT SHOULD BE RECKONED FROM THE DATES OF ACTUAL RECEIPT OF THE CONSIDERATION, BECAUSE IF THE ASSESSEE RECEIVES PART PAYMENT AS ON THE DATE OF TR ANSFER AND RECEIVES PART PAYMENT AFTER SIX MONTHS THEN IT WOULD LEAD TO AN IMPOSSIBL E SITUATION BY ASKING ASSESSEE TO INVEST MONEY IN SPECIFIED ASSET BEFORE ACTUAL RECEI PT OF THE SAME. RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR THE AFORESAID VIEW F ROM THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF S. GOPAL REDDY VS . CIT (1990) 181 ITR 378 (AP), WHEREIN SIMILAR SITUATION OF DELAYED RECEIPT OF COM PENSATION AMOUNT ON ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY, HON 'BLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT IF THE INVESTMENT IN SPECIFIED ASSET WAS MADE WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF COMPENSATION, AS AGAINST THE DATE OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY DEN OTING TRANSFER THEREOF THE SAME SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE FO R THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S. 54E OF THE ACT. HON 'BLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT A TAXING STATUTE OR ANY OTHER STATUTE HAS TO BE CONSTRUED REASONABLY AN D EVERY EFFORT SHOULD ALWAYS BE MADE TO ASCERTAIN THE INTENTION OF PARLIAMENT FROM THE WORDS EMPLOYED AND, AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, AN INTERPRETATION WHICH LEADS TO ABSURDIT Y SHOULD BE AVOIDED. THE HON 'BLE COURT ALSO OBSERVED THAT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 54E OF THE ACT, WHAT IS TO BE INVESTED IN SPECIFIED ASSETS IS 'THE CONSIDERATION OR ANY PART THEREOF' AND UNLESS THE CONSIDERATION IS RECEIVED, OR ACCRUES, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INVESTING IT. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JANARDHAN DASS (LATE THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHYAM SUNDE R) (2008) 299ITR 210 (ALL) 7 ITA NO.1987/KOL/2013-M/S. KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD. A.Y.2009-10 WHEREIN HON 'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT IF THE AGRICU LTURAL LAND IS PURCHASED WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM RECEIPT OF ENHANCEMENT COM PENSATION, THE CAPITAL GAIN OR NO CAPITAL GAIN, AS THE CASE MAY BE, WILL BE CHARGED U NDER SECTION 54B(2) OF THE ACT. 9. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISI ON OF THE HONBLE ITAT PUNE BENCH 'A ', PUNE IN THE CASE OF SHRI MAHESH NEMICHA NDRA GANESHWADE V/S INCOME- TAX OFFICER, WD 3(4), PUNE, DATED 29/03/2012 LAYING DOWN IDENTICAL PROPOSITION. 10. THE CIT(A) AGREED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE HELD AS FOLLOWS :- 35. THE HONBLE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH A IN THE CAS E OF CHANCHAL KUMAR SIRCAR V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-32(1) IN IT APPEAL NOS. 11 46 AND 1147 (KOL.) OF 2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 DATED FEBRUARY 21, 2012 REP ORTED IN (2012) 50 SOT 289 (KOL) HAS HELD THAT WHEN AN ASSESSEE RECEIVED PART PAYMEN TS AFTER EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT TO SALE AND HANDING OVER OF POSSESSION THEREBY COMPLET ING THE TRANSACTION IN TERMS OF SECTION 53A OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT BUT INVESTE D IN SPECIFIED BONDS WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION BEING PART PAY MENT IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT. IT OBSERVED AS UNDER:- '9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CONSISTENT PRINCIPLE ADOPT ED BY HON 'BLE HIGH COURTS IN RESPECT TO INTERPRETATION OF A BENEFICIAL PROVISION I.E. EXEMPTION PROVISION UNDER CAPITAL GAINS TAX, WE HAVE TO TAKE SIMILAR APPROACH IN DECIDING THE ISSUE IN HAND I.E. THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54EC OF TH E ACT BECAUSE THIS IS EXACTLY SIMILAR TO SECTION 54E, 54B OR 54EA OR EB OF THE AC T. IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US, ADMITTEDLY ASSESSEE RECEIVED PART PAYMENTS AFTER EX ECUTION OF AGREEMENT TO SALE AND HANDING OVER OF POSSESSION THEREBY COMPLETING THE T RANSACTION IN TERMS OF SECTION 53A OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT BUT INVESTED IN SPECIFI ED BONDS I.E. NABARD BONDS WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION BEIN G PART PAYMENT. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE F OR EXEMPTION U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT ON PART PAYMENT RECEIVED AFTER COMPLETION 'OF TRANSACT ION ON 02.()7.2004 AND AS DETAILED OUT IN PARA 3 PAGE 3 OF THIS ORDER. AO IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS ALLOWED. SIMILAR ARE THE FACTS IN ITA NO. 1146/KOI/2011 IN THE CASE OF SHRI CHANCHAL KR. SIRCAR, HENCE AO WILL ALLOW EXEMPTION IN THIS CASE ALSO. ' 36. THE HON'BLE ITAT PUNE BENCH 'A' IN THE CASE OF MAHESH NEMICHANDRA GANESHWADE V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER IN IT APPEAL NOS. 594 TO 597 AND 727 & 728 (PUNE) OF 2010 DATED MARCH 29, 2012 REPORTED IN (2012) 51 SOT 155 (PUNE) ; 147 TTJ 488 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 HELD THAT THE INVESTMENTS OF RS.12,50, 000/- AND RS.37,50,000/- MADE ON 3.8.2007 AND 27.10.2007 RESPECTIVELY HAVING BEEN MA DE WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF RECEIPT OF SUCH CONSIDERATION IS ALLOWED EXEMPTION FROM TAX ON CAPITAL GAINS. IT OBSERVED AS UNDER:- '18. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE INTERPRETATION PLACED BY THE CBDT IN CONSULTATION WITH THE MINISTRY OF LAW TO THE CONDITION OF MAKING INVESTMENT WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER IN SECTION 54EC WOULD SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE ALSO FOR EXEMPTION FROM CAPITAL GAIN WITH RESP ECT TO THE IMPUGNED SUM OF RS 50 LAKHS INVESTED IN SPECIFIED ASSETS ON 3.8.2007 AND 27.10.2007. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ADMITTEDLY THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF SALE PROCEEDS HAV E BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE 8 ITA NO.1987/KOL/2013-M/S. KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD. A.Y.2009-10 MUCH AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER I. E. 12. 7.2005, S O HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO EMERGING FROM THE RECORD THAT THE INVESTMENTS OF RS 12,50,000/- A ND RS 37,50,000/- MADE ON 3.8.2007 AND 27.10.2007 RESPECTIVELY HAVE BEEN MADE WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF RECEIPT OF SUCH CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, HAVING REGARD TO THE INTERPRETATION PLACED BY THE CBDT TO UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENT OF MAKING INVEST MENT WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER IN SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION FROM TAX ON CAPITAL GAINS QU A IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF RS 50 LAKHS. THEREFORE ON THIS ASPECT, ASSESSEE HAS TO SU CCEED. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ' 37. THE APPELLANT HAS DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT OF RS.8, 00,000,00/- ON 1.12.2009; RS.71 ,55,000/- ON 1.12.2009 AND RS.2,50,00,000/- ON 27.3 .2010 AND RS.10,00,00,000/- ON 27.3.2010. THE APPELLANT HAS DEPOSITED RS.47,33,55, 000/- AND IS REQUESTING FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.35,61,43,054/- ONLY SINCE THE PAYMENTS WERE R ECEIVED LATE AND THE BUYER HAS DEFAULTED. IT IS NO DOUBT THAT THE POSSESSION WAS G IVEN BY THE APPELLANT BUT THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT RECEIVED AS PER SCHEDULE. IN THE ABSENCE O F RECEIPT OF MONEY IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO DEPOSIT IN THE CAPITAL GAIN SCHEME AND SPECIALLY FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS COME OUT OF THE BIFR ONLY BECAUSE OF RECEIPT OF MONEY FROM THE SALE OF LAND AND IT HAS TO INVEST FOR SHIFTING OF PLANT AND MACHINERY TO START MANUFACTUR ING THE MACHINES TO BE DELIVERED AS PER ORDERS TO AVOID THE HEAVY PENALTY CLAUSES. THE APPE LLANT WAS CAUGHT IN A WEB OF FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS RELATING TO SHIFTING OF PLANT; MANUFACT URING AND SUPPLY OF MACHINES AS PER ORDER AND NON RECEIPT OF PAYMENT FROM AN UNDERTAKIN G OF GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA EVEN AFTER GETTING THE LAND REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE BUYE R. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND RELYING UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ITAT KOLKATA B ENCH 'A' IN THE CASE OF CHANCHAL KUMAR SIRCAR V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-32(1) AND THE HON'BLE ITAT PUNE BENCH 'A' IN THE CASE OF MAHESH NEMICHANDRA GANESHWADE V. INC OME-TAX OFFICER (SUPRA), IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAVING DEPOSITED THE MONEY WITHI N THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF 'REVISED RETURN PERMITTED U/S 139(5) AND SUBSEQUENTLY FILING THE REVISED RETURN CLAIMING DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN THE CAPITAL GAIN SCHEME; SHIFTING OF INDUSTRY FROM URBAN AREA TO NON URBAN AREA; DEPOSITING OF RS.47,33,55,000/- AND CLAIMING A DEDUCTION OF RS.35,61 ,43,054/- ONLY ETC., IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.35,61,43,054/- U/S 54G. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 11. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THAT THE FIRST PART OF SEC.54G(2) GIVES TIME LIMIT FOR MAKING INVESTMENT UPTO THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139 OF THE ACT WHICH INCLUDES BOTH SEC.139(1) OF THE ACT A ND SEC.139(5) OF THE ACT. THE SECOND PART OF SEC.54G(2) HOWEVER ADDS A RIDER THAT SUCH DEPOSIT BEING MADE IN ANY CASE NOT LATER THAN THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 1 39. IF THE TIME LIMIT LAID DOWN IN THE FIRST PART IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT VIZ., TIME LIM IT U/S.139 OF THE ACT WHICH INCLUDES BOTH SEC.139(1) & 139(5) OF THE ACT, THAN THE DEPOS IT OF RS.10 CRORES BY THE ASSESSEE 9 ITA NO.1987/KOL/2013-M/S. KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD. A.Y.2009-10 IN THE SPECIFIED ACCOUNT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.54G OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE TIME LIMIT LAID DOWN IN SEC.139(5) OF THE ACT WAS 3 1.3.2011 AND THE DEPOSIT OF RS.10 CRORES WAS MADE ON 30.3.2010. IF THE TIME LIMIT LA ID DOWN IN THE SECOND PART IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT VIZ., SEC.139(1) OF THE ACT WHICH IS 3 0.9.2009 IN THE PRESENT CASE, THAN THE DEPOSIT OF RS.10 CRORES BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SPECIFIED ACCOUNT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.54G OF THE ACT AS IT WAS MADE BEY OND THE TIME LIMIT. 12. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS WERE MADE BEFORE CIT( A) AND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS JAGRITI AGARWAL 20 3 TAXMAN 203 (P&H) AND THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS J.P ALIMAR KRISHNA (2011) 244 CTR 618 (KER). 13. WE HAVE GIVEN A VERY CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE DISPUTE IN T HIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ELIGIBILITY OF EXEMPTION ON DEPOSIT OF UNUTILIZED CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.10,00,00,000 THAT WAS DEPOSITED IN A SPECIFIED ACCOUNT AS LAID DOWN IN SE C.54G(2) OF THE ACT ON 30.3.2010 BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THAT THE FI RST PART OF SEC.54G(2) GIVES TIME LIMIT FOR MAKING INVESTMENT UPTO THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139 OF THE ACT WHICH INCLUDES BOTH SEC.139(1) OF THE ACT A ND SEC.139(5) OF THE ACT. THE SECOND PART OF SEC.54G(2) HOWEVER ADDS A RIDER THAT SUCH DEPOSIT BEING MADE IN ANY CASE NOT LATER THAN THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 1 39. IF THE TIME LIMIT LAID DOWN IN THE FIRST PART IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT VIZ., TIME LIM IT U/S.139 OF THE ACT WHICH INCLUDES BOTH SEC.139(1) & 139(5) OF THE ACT, THAN THE DEPOS IT OF RS.10 CRORES BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SPECIFIED ACCOUNT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.54G OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE TIME LIMIT LAID DOWN IN SEC.139(5) OF THE ACT WAS 3 1.3.2011 AND THE DEPOSIT OF RS.10 CRORES WAS MADE ON 30.3.2010. IF THE TIME LIMIT LA ID DOWN IN THE SECOND PART IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT VIZ., SEC.139(1) OF THE ACT WHICH IS 3 0.9.2009 IN THE PRESENT CASE, THAN THE DEPOSIT OF RS.10 CRORES BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SPECIFIED ACCOUNT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.54G OF THE ACT AS IT WAS MADE BEY OND THE TIME LIMIT. IN THE CASE OF 10 ITA NO.1987/KOL/2013-M/S. KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD. A.Y.2009-10 JAGRITI AGARWAL (SUPRA), THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYA NA HIGH COURT DEALT WITH A CASE OF DEDUCTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT WHEREIN SIMILAR PROV ISION AS IS CONTAINED IN SEC.54G(2) OF THE ACT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & H ARYANA HIGH COURT. SEC.54(2) OF THE ACT READS THUS: (2) THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN WHICH IS NOT AP PROPRIATED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASSET MADE WITHIN O NE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET TOOK PLACE , OR WHICH IS NOT UTILISED BY HIM FOR THE PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ASS ET BEFORE THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 , SHALL BE DEPOSITED BY HIM BEFORE FURNISHING SUCH RETURN [SUCH DEPOSIT BEING M ADE IN ANY CASE NOT LATER THAN THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 ] IN AN ACCOUNT IN ANY SUCH BANK OR INSTITUTION AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN, AND UTILISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, ANY SCHEME 37 WHICH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, FRAME IN THIS BEHALF AND SUCH RETURN SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY PROOF OF SUCH DEPOSIT; AND, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-SECTION (1), THE AMOUNT, IF ANY, ALREADY UTILISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE O R CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ASSET TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT SO DEPOSITED SHALL B E DEEMED TO BE THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET : 14. THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HELD SEC.139(4) WHICH IS AKIN TO SEC.139(5) OF THE ACT IN THE PRESENT CASE, WAS PART OF SEC.139(1) AND THEREFORE IF DEPOSIT OF UNUTILIZED CAPITAL GAIN IS MADE WITHIN T HE TIME LIMIT MADE IN SEC.139(4) OF THE ACT, THE DEDUCTION CANNOT BE DENIED TO AN ASSES SEE. THE FOLLOWING WERE THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE COURT. HAVING HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SUB-S. (4) OF S. 139 OF THE ACT IS, IN FACT, A PROVISO TO SUB-S. (1) OF S. 139 OF THE ACT. SEC. 139 OF THE ACT FIXES THE DIFFERENT DATES FOR F ILING THE RETURNS FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSEES. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AS THE RESPONDEN T, IT IS 31ST DAY OF JULY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN TERMS OF CL. (C) OF THE EXPLN. 2 TO SUB-S. (1) OF S. 139 OF THE ACT, WHEREAS SUB-S. (4) OF S. 139 PROVIDES FOR EXTE NSION IN PERIOD OF DUE DATE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. IT READS AS UNDER : '(4) ANY PERSON WHO HAS NOT FURNISHED A RETURN WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED TO HIM U NDER SUB-S. (1), OR WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-S. (1) OF S. 142, MAY FURNISH THE RETURN FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE 11 ITA NO.1987/KOL/2013-M/S. KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD. A.Y.2009-10 END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR BEFORE THE C OMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICHEVER IS EARLIER : PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE RETU RN RELATES TO A PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1988 OR ANY EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE REFERENCE TO ONE Y EAR AFORESAID SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS A REFERENCE TO TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR.' A READING OF THE AFORESAID SUB-SECTION WOULD SHOW THAT IF A PERSON HAS NOT FURNISHED THE RETURN OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR WITHI N THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SUB- S. (1) I.E., BEFORE 31ST DAY OF JULY OF THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE CAN FILE RETURN BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END O F THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE SALE OF THE ASSET HAVING TAKEN PLACE ON 13TH JA N., 2006, FALLING IN THE PREVIOUS (SIC ASSESSMENT) YEAR 2006- 07, THE RETUR N COULD BE FILED BEFORE THE END OF RELEVANT ASST. YR. 2007-08 (SIC2006-07) I.E . 31ST MARCH, 2007. THUS, SUB-S. (4) OF S. 139 PROVIDES EXTENDED PERIOD OF LI MITATION AS AN EXCEPTION TO SUB-S. (1) OF S. 139 OF THE ACT. SUB-S. (4) IS IN R ELATION TO THE TIME ALLOWED TO AN ASSESSEE UNDER SUB-S. (1) TO FILE RETURN. THEREFORE , SUCH PROVISION IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT PROVISION, BUT RELATES TO TIME CONTEMPL ATED UNDER SUB-S. (1) OF S. 139. THEREFORE, SUCH SUB-S. (4) HAS TO BE READ ALON G WITH SUB-S. (1). SIMILAR IS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF KARNATAKA A ND GAUHATI HIGH COURTS IN FATIMA BAI AND RAJESH KUMAR JALAN CASES (SUPRA) RES PECTIVELY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT DUE DATE FOR FUR NISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME AS PER S. 139(1) OF THE ACT IS SUBJECT TO THE EXTEN DED PERIOD PROVIDED UNDER SUB- S. (4) OF S. 139 OF THE ACT. 15. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARAYANA HIGH COURT WILL HOLD GOOD IN THE CONTEXT OF A REVIS ED RETURN FILED U/S.139(5) OF THE ACT AS WELL. HENCE THE DEPOSIT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS TO BE HELD TO BE WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED IN SEC.54G(2) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S.54G OF THE ACT. APART FROM THE ABOVE, WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT DECISIONS OF ITAT KOLKATA BENCH 'A' IN THE CASE OF CHANCHAL KUMA R SIRCAR V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-32(1) AND THE ITAT PUNE BE NCH 'A' IN THE CASE OF MAHESH 12 ITA NO.1987/KOL/2013-M/S. KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD. A.Y.2009-10 NEMICHANDRA GANESHWADE V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (SUPRA ), SUPPORTS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN THOSE DECISIONS THAT PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FOR MAKING DEPOSIT U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT SHOULD BE RECKONED FROM THE DATES OF ACT UAL RECEIPT OF THE CONSIDERATION, BECAUSE IF THE ASSESSEE RECEIVES PART PAYMENT AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND RECEIVES PART PAYMENT AFTER SIX MONTHS THEN IT WOULD LEAD TO AN IMPOSSIBLE SITUATION BY ASKING ASSESSEE TO INVEST MONEY IN SPECIFIED ASSET BEFORE ACTUAL RECEIPT OF THE SAME. WE ARE OF THE VIEW EVEN ON THIS BASIS THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) DESERVES TO BE UPHELD. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY GROUNDS TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). CONSEQUENTLY, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01.03.2017. SD/- SD/- [WASEEM AHMED] [ N.V.VASUDEVAN ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :01.03.2017. [RG PS] COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.M/S. KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD.,4, MANGO LANE, KOLK ATA-700001. 2.D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA.. 3. CIT(A)-VI, KOLKATA. 4. CIT-XI, KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES 13 ITA NO.1987/KOL/2013-M/S. KILBURN ENGINEERING LTD. A.Y.2009-10