SANTOSH MARESHWAR RACK VI, MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 2(2), Thane

ITA 2021/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5630 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Set aside
• Section: 54F; 142(1); 143(1); 54; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR , AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM / I .T.A. NO. 2021 / MUM/ 201 8 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 1 2 - 13 ) SANTOSH MORESHWAR RACK VI 3/37, ANAND ASHRAY, RAM MANDIR ROAD, BHAYANDER (W), THANE - 401101 . / VS. ITO WARD 2(2) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) - 1, ROOM NO.30, B WING, 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR I.T. PARK, ROAD NO.16Z, WAGLE ESTATE, THANE - 400604. ./ ./ PAN/G IR NO. : AJFPR 6634 P ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / DATE OF HEARING : 15 / 0 7 / 201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 / 07 / 201 9 / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, J M: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19 . 02 .201 8 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 , MUMBAI [HER EINAFTE R REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 20 12 - 1 3 . 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THAT THE ITO WARD 2(2), THANE AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1, THANE ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT APPREC IATING THE FACT THAT THIS MATTER HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE ITAT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL A. RAJADHYAKSHA REVENUE BY: SHRI CHAUDHARY ARUN KUMAR SINGH (SR. AR) ITA NO. 2021 / M/201 8 A.Y.20 12 - 13 2 PANAJI IN THE CASE OF 'ITO V MS RANIA FALERIO' ON 18.04.2013 WHEREIN THE ITAT PANAJI HAS GIVEN A CLEAR INTERPRETATION OF THE SAID CIRCULAR & CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS APPARENT FROM THE SAID CIRCULAR THAT THE GOVERNMENT ONLY INTENDED TO RESTRICT THE INVESTMENT IN A PARTICULAR FINANCIAL YEAR AND ACCORDINGLY FIXED THE LIMIT OF RS,50,00,000/ - AS PERMISSIBLE LIMIT IN A PARTICULAR FINANCIAL YEAR. IF THE LEGISLATURE WANTED TO RESTRICT THE EXEMP TION ITSELF TO RS 50,00,000, IT COULD HAVE SIMPLY DISPENSED WITH USING THE WORDS 'IN A FINANCIAL YEAR'. THIS FACT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ITO WARD 2(2) BY OUR LETTER DATED 27.03.2015. 2. THAT THE ITO WARD 2(2), THANE AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1, THANE ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT GIVING ANY JUSTIFICATION ON WHY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT PLACE HER RELIANCE ON THE AFORESAID CASE WHICH HAS ALREADY CLARIFIED THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE CIRCULAR NO 3/2008 AND INSTEAD PASSED AN ORDER BY PLACING HIS RELIANCE ON HIS OWN INTERPRETATION OF THE SAME CIRCULAR. 3. THAT THE ITO WARD 2(2), THANE AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1, THANE ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING A THUMB RULE OF LAW LAID DOWN B Y THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD (1973) 88 ITR 192 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IF THERE ARE TWO VIEWS POSSIBLE, THE VIEW FAVOURABLE TO THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE TAKEN. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, VARY A ND DELETE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE TIME OF THE HEARING. 3 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETU RN OF INCOME ON 30 . 0 7 .201 2 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,71,470 / - . THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) O F THE I.T. ACT, 1961 . THE REAFTER, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS . NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN & INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE SOLD THREE PROPERTIES AND SHOWED CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.42,176/ - IN RESPECT OF ALL THREE PROPERTIES AFTER CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION U/S 54 EC AND 54F OF THE ACT . THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF SAID PROPERTY WAS OF RS.35, 57,066 / - WHICH WAS ANCESTRAL ITA NO. 2021 / M/201 8 A.Y.20 12 - 13 3 PROPERTY. A FTER INDEXATION, THE COST OF ACQUISITION WAS RS.3,32,110/ - . THE ASSESSEE INVESTED OUT OF THE AN AMOUNT OF RS.19,53,571/ - IN 54EC & AN AMOUNT OF RS. 13,55,795/ - WAS INVESTED TO PURCHASE THE OTHER HOUSE PROPERTY. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE INCOME IN SUM OF RS.1,29,289/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE THREE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES DURING THE F.Y.2011 - 12 ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.12,56,493/ - , RS.32,24,956/ - AND RS.67,89,936/ - RESPECTIV ELY. THE DETAIL OF PROPERTY IS HEREBY REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - SR. NO. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA DATE OF TRANSACTION TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN 1 OLD SURVEY NO. 266, NEW SURVEY NO. 67, HISSA NO. 7 & OLD SURVEY NO 268, NEW S. NO. 63, H ISSA NO. 1, VILLAGE NAVGHAR, TAL BHAYANDER. 1640 SQ. METER & 6360 SQ. METER 07.06.2011 75,85,400/ - 67,89,936/ - 2 OLD SURVEY NO. 254 , NEW SURVEY NO. 41, HISSA NO. 9 & OLD SURVEY NO 252 , NEW S. NO. 43, HISSA NO. 43 , VILLAGE NAVGHAR, TAL BHAYANDER. 2530 SQ M ETER & 810 SQ. METER 23.12.2011 35,57,000 32,24,956/ - 3 OLD SURVEY NO. 272 , NEW SURVEY NO. 84, HISSA NO. 1 & OLD SURVEY NO 271 , NEW S. NO. 82 , HISSA NO. 1 3 , VILLAGE NAVGHAR, TAL BHAYANDER. 1870 SQ METER & 100 SQ METER 16.12.2011 17,73,000/ - 12,56,493/ - TOTAL 1,12,71,385/ - ITA NO. 2021 / M/201 8 A.Y.20 12 - 13 4 4. ON VERIFICATION, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED RS.50,00,000/ - IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION BOND ON 31.01.2012 AND FURTHER INVESTED RS.50,00,000/ - IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION BOND ON 31.07.2012 TO AVAIL TH E EXEMPTION U/S 54 EC. THE ASSESSEE INVESTED A SUM OF RS.50,00,000/ - IN THE A.Y.2012 - 13 AND OTHER PART OF RS.50,00,000/ - IN THE A.Y.2013 - 14 IN RESPECT OF TOTAL LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,12,71,385/ - . A FTER THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE , THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RESTRICT ED TO THE EXTENT OF 50,00,000/ - IN THE F.Y. 2011 - 12 AND REMAINING THE CLAIM OF RS.50,00,000/ - WAS DECLINED BEING BELONGING TO THE A.Y. 2012 - 13. THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED TO THE TUNE OF RS. 51,71,470/ - . FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FIL ED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 5 . WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. AT THE VERY OU TSET, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT THE EXEMPTION U/S 54EC CANNOT BE RESTRICTED TO THE EX TENT OF ONE FINANCIAL YEAR WHICH CAN BE ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF ANOTHER FINANCIAL YEAR ALSO IF THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE WITHIN THE PERIOD OF S IX MONTHS , THEREFORE, IN THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS WRONGLY BEEN DISALLOWED, HENCE, THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE, HENCE, IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSE SSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION IN CASE OF ACIT VS. M/S. JNR SECURITIES BROKING LTD. IN ITA. NO.6987/M/2013 DATED 08.07.2015, M/S. SHIVKUMAR MIRCHANDANI VS. ITO 16(2)(2) IN ITA. NO.7054/M/2014 DATED 24.06.2016 AND THE DECISION OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ITA NO. 2021 / M/201 8 A.Y.20 12 - 13 5 TITLED AS A CIT VS. C. JAICHANDER AND OTHER (2015) 370 ITR 579(MAD). HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REVENUE HAS REFUTED THE SAID CONTENTION. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE FACTUAL POSITION IS NOT IN DISPUTE . THE AS SESSEE SOLD THE PROPERTY BEARING OLD SURVEY NO. 266, NEW SURVEY NO.67, HISSA NO.7 & OLD SURVEY NO. 268, NEW S. NO.63, HISSA NO. 1, VILLAGE NAVGHAR, TAL BHAYANDER ON 07.01.2012 IN TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.75,85,400/ - AND SOLD SECOND PROPERTY BEARING O LD SURVEY NO.254 , NEW S. NO. 41, HISSA NO. 9 & OLD S. NO. 252, NEW S. NO.43, H.NO. 43, VILLAGE NAVGHAR, TAL. BHAYANDER ON 23.12.2011IN TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.35,57,000/ - AND THIRD PROPERTY BEARING OLD S. NO.272, NEW S. NO.84, H. NO. 13 OF VILLAGE N AVGHAR, TAL. BHAYANDER ON 16.12.2011 TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.12,56,493/ - . THE ASSESSEE MADE THE INVESTMENT IN REC BONDS OF RS.50,00,000/ - ON 11.01.2012 AND ALSO MADE THE INVESTMENT IN REC BONDS IN SUM OF RS.50,00,000/ - ON 05.07.2012. THE CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE CLAIM TO THE EXTENT OF ONE INVESTMENT IN REC BONDS OF RS.50,00,000/ - BELONGING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR OF 2011 - 12 AND DECLINED THE OTHER INVESTMENT IN REC BONDS OF RS.50,00,000/ - BEING BELONGING TO THE OTHER FINANCIAL YEAR OF 2012 - 13 . THE SAL E DATED 23.12.2011 AND 16.12.2011 WAS IN SUM OF RS.17,73,000/ - RESPECTIVELY WHICH IS MORE THAN 50,00,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE INVESTED ON 11.01.2012 WHICH IS WELL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. THE OTHER INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN REC BONDS WAS ON 05.07.20 12 AND IF THE TRANSACTION DATED 07.01.2012 IN SUM OF RS. 75,85,400/ - WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THAN THE INVESTMENT IN SUM OF RS.50,00,000/ - IN REC BONDS IS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. NOW IT IS TO BE SEEN WHETHER BOTH THE CLAIM ARE LIABLE TO BE ALLO WED OR NOT . IN THIS REGARD, T HE MATTER WAS CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE HONBLE ITA NO. 2021 / M/201 8 A.Y.20 12 - 13 6 ITAT IN THE CASE OF JNR SECURITIES BROKING (SUPRA) AND THE RELEVANT FINDING IS HEREBY REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 3. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PERUSED. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,99,12,143/ - ON WHICH IT HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 54EC OF RS.1,00,00,000/ - SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS IN REC BONDS. THE AO, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS EVIDENCE FOR REC BOND AND DEDUCTION CLAIMED. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED PROOF OF REC BONDS AMOUNTING TO RS.50,00,000/ - . IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF R S.1,00,00,000/ - , IT HAS FILED COPIES OF JUDGMENT IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CLAIM U/S. 54EC FOR INVESTMENT UPTO RS.1,00,00,000/ - IN DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEAR. ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED ONE INVESTMENT REC BOND ON 29/3 /2010 AND THE OTHER ON 7/9/2010. THE AO FURTHER FOUND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT TENABLE AS THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF RS.50,00,000/ - ONLY BEING INVESTMENT IN ONE FINANCIAL YEAR. REGARDING APPLICABILITY, OF DEDUCTION' U/S.54EC, THE AO PRODUCED SECTION 54EC IN THE, ASSESSMENT ORDER ON PAGE 2 & '3 WHERE IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT 'PROVIDED THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE ON OR AFTER 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2007 IN THE LONG TERM SPECIFIED ASSET BY AN ASSESSEE DURING ANY FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED RS .50 LACS. THE AO FURTHER STATED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE SAME AS THAT OF THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON AND FURTHER CONFIRMED IN THE, FORM OF THE FOLLOWING TABULAR : - CAPITAL GAIN AROSE IN F.Y.2009 - 10 DATE OF SALE OF INVESTMENT 22/3/2010 DATE OF INVESTMENT IN REC BOND 29/3/2010 F.Y.OVER BY 31/3/2010 CAPITAL GAIN PUT TO TAX IN AY 2010 - 11 SECOND PART OF REC BOND PURCHASED FY 2010 - 11 RELEVANT TO AY 2011 - 12 CAPITAL GAIN AROSE IN F.Y.2009 - 10 DATE OF SALE OF INVESTMENT 22/3/2010 DATE OF INV ESTMENT IN REC BOND 29/3/2010 F.Y.OVER BY 31/3/2010 CAPITAL GAIN PUT TO TAX IN AY 2010 - 11 SECOND PART OF REC BOND PURCHASED FY 2010 - 11 RELEVANT TO AY 2011 - 12 THE AO FURTHER STATED THAT AS THE CAPITAL ASSET ITSELF IS SOLD IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO A .Y. UNDER CONSIDERATION, THERE IS NO INCOME LEFT OUT FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ITA NO. 2021 / M/201 8 A.Y.20 12 - 13 7 U/S. 54EC. THUS, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS.50 ITA NO.6987/13 3 LAKHS FURTHER CANNOT BE ALLOWED FOR DEDUCTION WHEN THERE IS NIL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2011 - 12 AS THE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY HIM' IN SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE DEDUCTION ELIGIBLE U/S. 54EC WAS RESTRICTED TO. RS.50 LAKHS ONLY. 4. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE AFTER OBSERVING AS UNDER : - 2.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY, CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE, ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT THE ONLY DISPUTE IN THIS CASE IS REGARDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IF THE CAPITAL ASSET ITSELF IS SOLD IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THERE IS NO, INCOME LEFT OUT FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54EC TH EN THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS THUS RESTRICTED ,TO RS. 50 LAKHS AND NO FURTHER CLAIM CAN BE ALLOWED FOR DEDUCTION WHEN THERE IS NIL INCOME IN HANDS OF THE APPELLANT IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR. 2.3.1 I FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE HONBLE AHMADABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF ASPI GINWALA, SHREE RAM ENGG. & MFG. INDUSTRIES VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 52 SOT 16,(2012) WHEREIN THE FACTS WERE THAT THE APPELLANT SOLD A HOUSE PROPERTY ON 22/10/2007' FOR RS. 6.21 CRORES. THE APPELLANT HAD 50% S HARE IN THAT PROPERTY. THE APPELLANT MADE AN INVESTMENT OF RS. 50 LAKHS ON 31/12/2008 IN REC BONDS AND RS. 50 LAKHS ON 26/512008 IN NHAI BONDS AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF RS.1 CRORE U/S. 50EC. THE INVESTMENT IN REC BOND WAS WITHIN TIME LIMIT OF SIX MONTHS PRE SCRIBED IN SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT AND CLAIMED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.100 LAKHS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 50 LAKHS. THE HON'BLE AHMEDABAD BENCH HELD AS THAT: 'THE 'DISPUTE, WHICH IS TO BE DECIDED IN THIS CASE IS WHETHE R AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION54EC 'THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION, OF RS.1 CRORE AS SIX MONTHS PERIOD FOR INVESTMENT IN ELIGIBLE INVESTMENT INVOLVES TWO FINANCIAL YEARS. IF THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS 'YES' WHETHER INVESTMENT MADE BY THE AS SESSEE IN NHAI BONDS ON 26112008 BEYOND SIX MONTHS PERIOD IS' ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO 'SUBSCRIPTION FOR ELIGIBLE INVESTMENT WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FROM 1/4/2008 TO 26/5/2008. (PARA 7). IT IS CLEAR FROM PROVISO TO SECTION 5 4EC THAT WHERE ASSESSEE TRANSFERS HIS CAPITAL ASST AFTER 30TH SEPTEMBER OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR HE GETS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AN ITA NO.6987/13 4 INVESTMENT OF R. 50 ITA NO. 2021 / M/201 8 A.Y.20 12 - 13 8 LAKHS EACH IN TWO DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEAR AND IS ABLE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UPTO RS.1 CRORE U /S 54EC. SINCE THE WORDING OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC IS CLEAR, THE BENEFITS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE TO' THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, ASSESSEE IN INSTANT CASE WAS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION OF RS. 1 CRORE AS SIX MONTHS PERIOD FOR INVESTMENT IN ELIGIBLE INVESTMENTS INVOLVED WAS TWO FINANCIAL YEARS. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD MADE, INVESTMENT IN THE REC BOND WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS THE SAME NEED TO BE ALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING, OFFLCER IS DIRECTE D TO ALLOW EXEMPTION OF RS. 100 LAKHS U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS, THUS ALLOWED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOUND THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAICHANDE R, 370 ITR 0579, WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER : - ON A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE SAID PROVISION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SECTION 54EC(L) OF THE ACT RESTRICTS THE TIME LIMIT FOR THE PERIOD OF INVESTMENT AFTER THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SOLD TO S IX MONTHS. THERE IS NO CAP ON THE INVESTMENT TO BE MADE IN BONDS. THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC(L) OF THE ACT SPECIFIES THE QUANTUM OF INVESTMENT AND IT STATES THAT THE INVESTMENT SO MADE ON OR AFTER 1.4.2007 IN THE LONG - TERM SPECIFIED ASSET BY AN ASSE SSEE DURING ANY FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES. IN OTHER WORDS, AS PER THE MANDATE OF SECTION 54EC(1) OF THE ACT,THE TIME LIMIT FOR INVESTMENT IS SIX MONTHS AND THE BENEFIT THAT FLOWS FROM THE FIRST PROVISO IS THAT IF THE ASSESSEE MAKES T HE INVESTMENT OF RS.50,00,000/ - IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR, IT WOULD HAVE THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54EC(1) OF THE ACT. (PARA 7) THE LEGISLATURE NOTICING THE AMBIGUITY IN THE ABOVESAID PROVISION, BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2014, WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2015, INSERTED AFT ER THE EXISTING PROVISO TO SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT, A SECOND PROVISO, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 'PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY AN ASSESSEE IN THE LONG - TERM SPECIFIED ASSET, FROM CAPITAL GAINS ARISING'. FROM TRANSFER OF ONE O R MORE ORIGINAL ASSETS, DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORIGINAL ASSET OR ASSETS ARE TRANSFERRED AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES.' (PARA 8) IN ANY EVENT, FROM A READING OF SECTION 54EC(1) AND THE FIRST PROVISO, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TIME LIMIT FOR INVESTMENT IS SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND EVEN IF SUCH INVESTMENT ITA NO. 2021 / M/201 8 A.Y.20 12 - 13 9 FALLS UNDER TWO FINANCIAL YEARS, THE BENEFIT CLAIMED BY THE' ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ITA NO.6987/13 5 DENIED. IT WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE, IF THE RESTRICTION ON THE INVESTMENT IN BONDS TO RS.50,00,000/ - IS INCORPORATED IN SECTION 54EC(1) OF THE ACT ITSELF. HOWEVER, THE AMBIGUITY HAS BEEN REMOVED BY THE LEGISLATURE WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2015 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 - 16 AND THE SUBS EQUENT YEARS 6. SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF DR. KUMAR M. DHAWALE, ITA NO.7585/MUM/2012, ORDER DATED 9 - 1 - 2015 FOR THE A.Y.2009 - 2010. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, R ESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAICHANDER (SUPRA), AS WELL AS DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DR. KUMAR M. DHAWALE (SUPRA), WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR ALLOWING FURTHER CLAIM OF EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR AMOUNTING TO RS.50 LAKHS U/S.54EC OF THE I.T. ACT . 6. IN ANOTHER CASE TITLED AS MR. SHIVKUMAR MIRCHANDANI (SUPRA) THE HONBLE ITAT HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: - 4. BEFORE US, LD. A UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. C. JAICHANDER [2015] 370 ITR 579 (MAD.), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE SOLD A PROPERTY FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.3,46,50,000 AND INVESTED RS.1 CRORE OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS IN CERTAIN BONDS IN TWO FINANCIAL YEARS, NAMELY, RS.50 LAKHS IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION BONDS IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007 - 08 AND RS. 50 LAKHS IN NATIONAL HIGHWAYS HAI BOND IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 - 09. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD TAKE THE BENEFIT OF INVESTMENT IN SPECIFIED BONDS UP TO A MAXIMUM OF RS. 50 LAKHS ONLY UNDER SECTION 54EC(1) AND ACCORDINGLY, HELD THAT THE OTHER SUM RS. 50 LAKHS INVESTE D OVER AND ABOVE THE CEILING PRESCRIBED DID NOT QUALIFY FOR EXEMPTION. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE EXEMPTION GRANTED UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC(1) SHOULD BE CONSTRUED NOT TRANSA CTION - WISE BUT FINANCIAL YEAR - WISE. IF AN ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO INVEST A SUM OF RS. 50 LAKHS EACH IN TWO DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEARS, WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET, IT COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE INADMISSIBLE. ON APP EALS: HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEALS, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION OF RS. 1CRORE UNDER SECTION 54EC, IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT OF RS. 50 LAKHS MADE IN TWO DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEARS. ITA NO. 2021 / M/201 8 A.Y.20 12 - 13 10 4.1 HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. COROMANDEL INDUSTRIES LTD. [2015] 370 ITR 586 (MAD) HELD THAT ASSESSEE WILL BE ENTITLED FOR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, EVEN IF, INVESTMENT IS FALLING UNDER TWO FINANCIAL YEARS. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH FINDING OF CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE H AS INVESTED AMOUNTS IN TWO FINANCIAL YEARS. WE ARE AWARE THE AMENDMENT ON THE ISSUE IS PERSPECTIVE NOT RETROSPECTIVE. ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 7. FURTHER, WE ALSO FIND THE RELEVANT DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE TITLED AS CIT CHENNAI VS. C. JAICHANDER IN WHICH THE RELEVANT FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN AS UNDER: - 4. WE HAVE HEARD MR.J.NARAYANASAMY, LEARNED SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE; MRS.PUSHYA SITARAMAN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE RESPOND ENT IN T.C.(A) NO.419 OF 2014 AND MR.R.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENT IN T.C.(A) NO.533 OF 2014. 5. THE KEY ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC(1) OF THE ACT WOULD RESTRICT THE BENEFIT OF INVESTMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS IN BONDS TO THAT FINANCIAL YEAR DURING WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD OR IT APPLIES TO ANY FINANCIAL YEAR DURING THE SIX MONTHS PERIOD. 6. FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE, IT WOULD BE APPOSITE TO REFER TO SECTION 54EC(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH READS AS UNDER: SECTION 54EC . CAPITAL GAIN NOT TO BE CHARGED ON INVESTMENT IN CERTAIN BONDS. (1) WHERE THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF A LONG - TERM CAPITAL ASSET (THE CAPITAL ASSET SO TRANSFERRED BEING HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE ORIGINAL ASSET) AND THE ASSESSEE HAS, AT ANY TIME WITHIN A PERIOD OF SI X MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSFER, INVESTED THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE LONG - TERM SPECIFIED ASSET, THE CAPITAL GAIN SHALL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THAT IS TO SAY, (A) IF THE COST O F THE LONG - TERM SPECIFIED ASSET IS NOT LESS THAN THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, THE WHOLE OF SUCH CAPITAL GAIN SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 ; (B) IF THE COST OF THE LONG - TERM SPECIFIED ASSET IS LESS THAN THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, SO MUCH OF THE CAPITAL GAIN AS BEARS TO THE WHOLE OF THE CAPITAL GAIN THE SAME PROPORTION AS THE COST ITA NO. 2021 / M/201 8 A.Y.20 12 - 13 11 OF ACQUISITION OF THE LONG - TERM SPECIFIED ASSET BEARS TO THE WHOLE OF THE CAPITAL GAIN, SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 . PROVIDED THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2007 IN THE LONG - TERM SPECIFIED ASSET BY AN ASSES SEE DURING ANY FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES. 7. ON A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE SAID PROVISION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SECTION 54EC(1) OF THE ACT RESTRICTS THE TIME LIMIT FOR THE PE RIOD OF INVESTMENT AFTER THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SOLD TO SIX MONTHS. THERE IS NO CAP ON THE INVESTMENT TO BE MADE IN BONDS. THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC(1) OF THE ACT SPECIFIES THE QUANTUM OF INVESTME NT AND IT STATES THAT THE INVESTMENT SO MADE ON OR AFTER 1.4.2007 IN THE LONG - TERM SPECIFIED ASSET BY AN ASSESSEE DURING ANY FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES. IN OTHER WORDS, AS PER THE MANDATE OF SECTION 54EC(1) OF THE ACT, THE TIME LIMIT FOR INVESTMENT IS SIX MONTHS AND THE BENEFIT THAT FLOWS FROM THE FIRST PROVISO IS THAT IF THE ASSESSEE MAKES THE INVESTMENT OF RS.50,00,000/ - IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR, IT WOULD HAVE THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54EC(1) OF THE ACT. 8. THE LEGISLATURE NOTICING THE AMBIGUITY IN THE ABOVE SAID PROVISION, BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT , 2014, WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2015, INSE RTED AFTER THE EXISTING PROVISO TO SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT, A SECOND PROVISO, WHICH READS AS UNDER: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY AN ASSESSEE IN THE LONG - TERM SPECIFIED ASSET, FROM CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM TRANSFER OF ONE OR MORE ORIGINAL ASSETS, DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORIGINAL ASSET OR ASSETS ARE TRANSFERRED AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES. 9. AT THIS JUNCTURE, F OR BETTER CLARITY, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REFER TO THE NOTES ON CLAUSES FINANCE BILL 2014 AND THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS IN THE FINANCE (NO.2) BILL, 2014, WHICH READ AS UNDER: NOTES ON CLAUSES FINANCE BILL 2014: CLAUSE 23 OF THE BILL SEEKS TO AMEND SECTION 54EC OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT RELATING TO CAPITAL GAIN NOT TO BE CHARGED ON INVESTMENT IN CERTAIN BONDS. THE EXISTING PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 54EC PROVIDE THAT WHERE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF A LONG - TERM CAPITAL ASSET AND THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS INVESTED THE WHOLE OR PART OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE LONG - TERM SPECIFIED ASS ET, THE PROPORTIONATE CAPITAL GAINS SO INVESTED IN THE LONG - TERM SPECIFIED ASSET OUT OF TOTAL CAPITAL GAIN SHALL NOT BE CHARGED TO TAX. THE ITA NO. 2021 / M/201 8 A.Y.20 12 - 13 12 PROVISO TO THE SAID SUB - SECTION PROVIDES THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE LONG - TERM SPECIFIED ASSET DURING ANY FINANC IAL YEAR SHALL NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES. IT IS PROPOSED TO INSERT A PROVISO BELOW FIRST PROVISO IN SAID SUB - SECTION (1) SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY AN ASSESSEE IN THE LONG - TERM SPECIFIED ASSET, FROM CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM TRANSFER OF ONE OR MORE ORIGINAL ASSETS, DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORIGINAL ASSET OR ASSETS ARE TRANSFERRED AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES. THIS AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 2015 AND WILL, ACCORDING LY, APPLY IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 - 16 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. MEMORANDUM: EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS IN THE FINANCE (NO.2) BILL, 2014: CAPITAL GAINS EXEMPTION ON INVESTMENT IN SPECIFIED BONDS. THE EXISTING PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT PROVIDE THAT WHERE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF A LONG - TERM CAPITAL ASSET AND THE ASSESSEE HAS, AT ANY TIME WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, INVESTED THE WHOLE OR ANY P ART OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE LONG - TERM SPECIFIED ASSET, OUT OF THE WHOLE OF THE CAPITAL GAIN, SHALL NOT BE CHARGED TO TAX. THE PROVISO TO THE SAID SUB - SECTION PROVIDES THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE LONG - TERM SPECIFIED ASSET DURING ANY FINANCIAL YEAR SHALL NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES. HOWEVER, THE WORDINGS OF THE PROVISO HAVE CREATED AN AMBIGUITY. AS A RESULT THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING DURING THE YEAR AFTER THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER WERE INVESTED IN THE SPECIFIED ASSET IN SUCH A MANNER SO AS TO SPLIT THE INVES TMENT IN TWO YEARS I.E., ONE WITHIN THE YEAR AND SECOND IN THE NEXT YEAR BUT BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS. THIS RESULTED IN THE CLAIM FOR RELIEF OF ONE CRORE RUPEES AS AGAINST THE INTENDED LIMIT FOR RELIEF OF FIFTY LAKHS RUPEES. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS PROPO SED TO INSERT A PROVISO IN SUB - SECTION (1) SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY AN ASSESSEE IN THE LONG - TERM SPECIFIED ASSET, OUT OF CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM TRANSFER OF ONE OR MORE ORIGINAL ASSET, DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORIGINAL ASSET OR ASSETS ARE TRANSFERRED AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES. ITA NO. 2021 / M/201 8 A.Y.20 12 - 13 13 THIS AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 2015 AND WILL, ACCORDINGLY, APPLY IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 - 16 AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS . 10. THE LEGISLATURE HAS CHOSEN TO REMOVE THE AMBIGUITY IN THE PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC(1) OF THE ACT BY INSERTING A SECOND PROVISO WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2015. THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS IN THE FINANCE (NO.2) BILL, 2014 ALSO STATES THAT THE SAME WILL BE APPLICABLE FROM 1.4.2015 IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 - 16 AND THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE PROBABLY APPEARS TO BE THAT THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD BE FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2015 - 2016 TO AVOID UNWANTED LITIGATIONS OF THE PREVIOUS YEARS. EVEN OTHERWISE, WE DO NOT WISH TO READ ANYTHING MORE INTO THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC(1) OF THE ACT, AS IT STOOD IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSEES. 11. IN ANY EVENT, FROM A READING OF SECTION 54EC(1) AND THE FIRST PROVISO, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TIME LIMIT FOR INVESTMENT IS SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND EVEN IF SUCH INVEST MENT FALLS UNDER TWO FINANCIAL YEARS, THE BENEFIT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED. IT WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE, IF THE RESTRICTION ON THE INVESTMENT IN BONDS TO RS.50,00,000/ - IS INCORPORATED IN SECTION 54EC(1) OF THE ACT ITSELF. HOWEVER, THE AMBIGUITY HAS BEEN REMOVED BY THE LEGISLATURE WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2015 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 - 16 AND THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL WARRANTING INTERFERENCE BY THIS COURT. THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW ARE ANSWERED AGAINST THE REVENUE AND THESE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. NO COSTS. 8. ON APPRAISAL OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED FINDING, IT NOW QUI TE CLEAR THAT THE SECTION 54EC - (I) CONFINES THE TIME LIMITS FOR INVESTMENT FOR THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND EVEN IF SUCH INVESTMENT FALLS UNDER TWO FINANCIAL YEARS. MOREOVER, THE AMBIGUITY IF ANY HAS BEEN REMOVED BY LEGISLATURE BY INSERTING THE FINANCE ACT (NO. 2) ACT, 2014 W.E.F. 01.04.2015 IN RELATION TO THE A.Y.2015 - 16 . IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.50,00,000/ - IN THE TWO ASSESSMENT YEAR BUT THE DEPOSIT WAS WELL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. IN THE SAID SITUATION THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CASE OF JAI CHANDER (SUPRA) AS CLEAR THE AMBIGUITY AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN RAISE THE CLAIM ITA NO. 2021 / M/201 8 A.Y.20 12 - 13 14 IN THE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN CASE OF JNR SECURITIES BROKING(SUPRA). THE HONBLE ITAT HAS ALSO DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS ARE NOT DISTINGUISHABLE AT THIS STAGE. NO LAW CONTRARY TO THE LAW RELIED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE US. THEREFORE, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OF ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND ALSO KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE LAW DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE , HENCE, IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE . W E ORDER ACCORDINGLY. WE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED IN VIEW OF THE SECTION 54EC(I) OF THE ACT RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH BOTH THE YEARS . ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REVENUE. 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 /07 /2019 . SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJESH KUMAR ) (AMARJIT SINGH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 19/ 07 / 2019 V IJAY ITA NO. 2021 / M/201 8 A.Y.20 12 - 13 15 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPOND ENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY) , / ITAT, MUMBAI