Dr. Adusumalli Srikanth(HUF), Vijayawada V. THE ITO, Vijayawada

ITA 378/VIZ/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6463 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D J P ANAND
• Section: 54B; 54

Judgement Text

ITA NO.378 /VIZAG/2015 DR. ADUSUMILLI SRIKANTH (HUF), VIJAYAWADA 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . [ , . . , BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO.378/VIZAG/2015 ( [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) DR. ADUSUMILLI SRIKANTH (HUF), VIJAYAWADA [PAN NO.AALHA3689L] ITO, WARD - 2(3), VIJAYAWADA ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI C. SUBRAHMANYAM, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.J.P. ANAND, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 27.11.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.12.2017 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF THE CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA DATED 30.9.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. FACTS ARE IN BRIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A HUF DERIVED INCOME FROM THE CAPITAL GAINS DURING THE YEAR FILED A RETURN OF INCOME BY ADMITTING NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ITA NO.378 /VIZAG/2015 DR. ADUSUMILLI SRIKANTH (HUF), VIJAYAWADA 2 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS 'THE ACT'). IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O. HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT PRASADAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA FOR A CONSIDERATION OF 62,54,000/-. AFTER CLAIMING COST OF INFLATION INDEX, THE ASSESSEE HAS ARRIVED CAPITAL GAINS AT 52,61,455/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS AT MYLAVARAM TO THE TUNE OF 59,71,015/- AND CLAIMED CAPITAL GAINS EXEMPTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE THAT HOW YOU ARE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT SECTION 54B OF THE ACT NOT EXCLUDED THE HUF. IT HAS ONLY MENTIONED THE ASSESSEE OR A PARENT OF HIS. THIS PART OF THE SECTION WAS AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F. 1.4.2013. THIS AMENDMENT IS CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND PRAYED THAT EXEMPTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT MAY BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, HE HAS OBSERVED THAT A PLAIN READING OF SECTION 54B OF THE ACT SHOWS THAT INDIVIDUAL ONLY ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT MADE TO SECTION 54B OF THE ACT INCLUDING HUF, APPLIES ONLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND NOT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. HAS DISALLOWED THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 54B OF THE ACT. ITA NO.378 /VIZAG/2015 DR. ADUSUMILLI SRIKANTH (HUF), VIJAYAWADA 3 3. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. RELEVANT PORTION OF THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 6.2 IN THIS CASE, APPELLANT IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL. IT IS A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY (NOT ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE AS PER THE RELEVANT YEAR FINANCE ACT PROVISIONS). IT HAS BEEN HELD IN THE FOLLOWING CASES THAT THE WORD ASSESSEE' USED IN THE SECTION WOULD BE APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL AND WILL NOT TAKE IN A HUF (HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY). THUS, A HUF CANNOT CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S.54B. 1) CIT VS DEVARAJULU G.K. (1991) 191 ITR 211 (MAD) 2) PRAVIN CHAND MOHAN KUMAR VS. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 11 (RAJ) 3) CIT VS VIJAYAKUMAR .R (1995) 214 ITR 483 (MAD) 4) DARAPANENI CHENNA KRISHNAYYA (HUE) VS CIT (2007) 291 ITR 98 (A.P) 6.3 IN THE CASE OF PRAVIN CHAND MOHAN KUMAR CASE, RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE WORD ASSESSEE IN SECTION 54(1) OR A PARENT OF HIS CANNOT BE INTERPRETED TO INCLUDE THE HUF AS NEITHER HUF HAS ANY PARENT NOR THE WORD 'HIS' COULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR IT. THOUGH THE BENEFIT OF THIS SECTION HAS BEEN EXTENDED FROM A.Y.1988-89 TO HUF, THE SAID AMENDMENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. 6.4 BY SAME ANALOGY, THOUGH THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54 B HAS NOW BEEN EXTENDED FROM 01.04.2013 ONWARDS TO HUF, I.E. (FROM A.Y.13-14) THE SAID AMENDMENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. 6.5 FINANCE ACT. 2012 BROUGHT IN THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT IN SECTION 54B IN SECTION 54 B OF THE IT ACT, IN SUBSECTION (1), FOR THE WORDS 'THE ASSESSEE OR A PARENT OF HIS', THE WORDS 'THE ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR HIS PARENT OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY' SHALL BE SUBSTITUTED W.E.F. 01/04/2013.' IN CLAUSE 18 OF MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS IN FINANCE BILL 2012, IT IS STATED AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO.378 /VIZAG/2015 DR. ADUSUMILLI SRIKANTH (HUF), VIJAYAWADA 4 IT IS PROPOSED THAT THIS BENEFIT BE ALSO GRANTED TO A HUF. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS PROPOSED TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT TO PROVIDE THAT THE ROLLOVER RELIEF IS AVAILABLE IF THE LAND IS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES BY AN INDIVIDUAL OR HIS PARENT OR BY A HUF. THE AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2013 AND WILL ACCORDINGLY APPLY TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS'. 6.6 FOLLOWING ARE SOME PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED REGARDING PRINCIPLE OF STRICT/ REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION. A) 'IF THE PERSON SOUGHT TO BE TAXED COMES WITHIN THE LETTER OF THE LAW HE MUST BE TAXED, HOWEVER THE GREAT HARDSHIP MAY APPEAR TO THE JUDICIAL MIND TO BE. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE CROWN SEEKING TO RECOVER THE TAX, CANNOT BRING THE SUBJECT WITHIN THE LETTER OF THE LAW, THE SUBJECT IS FREE. HOWEVER APPARENTLY WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF LAW THE CASE MIGHT OTHERWISE APPEAR TO BE' (LORD CAIRNS) B) 'IN A TAXING ACT ONE HAS TO LOOK MERELY AT WHAT IS CLEARLY SAID. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR ANY INTENDMENT. THERE IS NO EQUITY ABOUT A TAX. THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION AS TO TAX. NOTHING IS TO BE READ IN, NOTHING IS TO BE IMPLIED.' (ROWLATT, J.) C) THE PROVISIONS IN A TAXING STATUTE DEALING WITH MACHINERY FOR ASSESSMENT HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED BY THE ORDINARY RULES OF CONSTRUCTION, THAT IS TO SAY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CLEAR INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE, WHICH IS TO MAKE A LEVY OF CHARGE EFFECTIVE. GURSAHAI SAIGAL VS CIT(SC) 48 ITR 1 D) WHEN THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE. PROVISIONS CANNOT BE INTERPRETED TO CONFER BENEFIT ON ASSESSEE IRCA LABORATORY LTD. VS DCIT (SC) 266 ITR 521 E) PRINCIPLE OF BENEFICIAL INTERPRETATION WOULD APPLY ONLY IN A CASE WHERE THE COURT IS IN DOUBT ABOUT THE TRUE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE PROVISION OR FINDS TWO EQUALLY REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS AND NOT WHERE THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE ARE PLAIN, PRECISE AND UNAMBIGUOUS. INDIAN RAYON CORPORATION LIMITED VS CIT (BOM) 231 ITR 26 F) ONCE IT IS SHOWN THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMES WITHIN THE LETTER OF LAW, HE MUST BE TAXED, HOWEVER, GREATER THE HARDSHIP MAY APPEAR TO THE JUDICIAL MIND, TO BE. TARULATA SHAYAM & ORS VS. CIT(SC) 108 ITR 345. G) WHEN THE MEANING OF WORDS IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS, THE COURT HAS TO GIVE EFFECT TO IT WHATEVER BE THE CONSEQUENCES, AS THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO MITIGATE HARSH CONSEQUENCES OF THE STATUTE, IF ANY. PATIL VIJAYAKUMAR & ORS. VS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. (KAR) 151 ITR 48 ITA NO.378 /VIZAG/2015 DR. ADUSUMILLI SRIKANTH (HUF), VIJAYAWADA 5 H) THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER A SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION OR A PARLIAMENTARY STATUTE WOULD BE HELD TO BE CLARIFICATORY OR DECLARATORY OR NOT WOULD INDISPUTABLY DEPEND UPON THE NATURE THEREOF AS ALSO THE OBJECT IT SEEKS TO ACHIEVE. THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT (APEX COURT) IN VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I [(2007) 9 SCC 665]. HOLDING: 'IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE AMENDMENT MADE TO SECTION 271 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2002 ONLY STATED THAT THE AMENDED PROVISION WOULD COME INTO FORCE WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-2003. THE STATUTE NOWHERE STATED THAT THE SAID AMENDMENT WAS EITHER CLARIFICATORY OR DECLARATORY. ON THE CONTRARY, THE STATUTE STATED THAT THE SAID AMENDMENT WOULD COME INTO EFFECT ON 1-4-2003 AND THEREFORE, WOULD APPLY TO ONLY TO FUTURE PERIODS AND NOT TO ANY PERIOD PRIOR TO 1-4-2003 OR TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20042005. IT IS THE WELL SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT AN AMENDMENT CAN BE CONSIDERED TO BE DECLARATORY AND CLARIFICATORY ONLY IF THE STATUTE ITSELF EXPRESSLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY STATES THAT IT IS A DECLARATORY AND CLARIFICATORY PROVISION. IF THERE IS NO SUCH CLEAR STATEMENT IN THE STATUTE ITSELF, THE AMENDMENT WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE MERELY DECLARATORY OR CLARIFICATORY. EVEN IF THE STATUTE DOES CONTAIN A STATEMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE AMENDMENT IS DECLARATORY OR CLARIFICATORY, THAT IS NOT THE END OF THE MATTER. THE COURT WILL NOT REGARD ITSELF AS BEING BOUND BY THE SAID STATEMENT MADE IN THE STATUTE BUT WILL PROCEED TO ANALYSE THE NATURE OF THE AMENDMENT AND THEN CONCLUDE WHETHER IT IS IN REALITY A CLARIFICATORY OR DECLARATORY PROVISION OR WHETHER IT IS AN AMENDMENT WHICH IS INTENDED TO CHANGE THE LAW AND WHICH APPLIES TO FUTURE PERIODS' SL.NO. APPELLANTS CLAIM IN HIS LETTER DATED 12.8.2015 REMARKS 1. NOWHERE IN THE SECTION WAS IT STATED THE HUF IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT OR INDIVIDUAL ONLY ELIGIBLE. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT ONLY INDIVIDUAL IS ELIGIBLE WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DEVARAJULU 191 ITR 211 HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HELD AS FOLLOWS. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT, THE WORD ASSESSEE OCCURRING IN SECTION 54B OF THE ACT CAN ALSO BE INTERPRETED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO ACCORD WITH THE CONTEXT AND SUBJECT OF ITS USAGE. THE WORDS ASSESSEE OF A PARENT OF HIS OCCURRING IN SECTION 54B OF THE ACT, IN THE CONTEXT IN ITA NO.378 /VIZAG/2015 DR. ADUSUMILLI SRIKANTH (HUF), VIJAYAWADA 6 WHICH THE WORD 'ASSESSEE' HAS BEEN USED AND FROM THE MEANING OF THE WORDS ASSOCIATED WITH IT, WOULD APPEAR TO US TO CLEARLY INDICATE THAT ONLY AN 'INDIVIDUAL ASSESSEE' HAS BEEN CONTEMPLATED AND NOT ANY OTHER ENTITY OF ASSESSMENT. NO DOUBT, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY IS A DISTINCT TAXABLE ENTITY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT, APART FROM THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS CONSTITUTING IT EVEN SO, IF, IN PLACE OF THE WORD 'ASSESSEE' OCCURRING IN SECTION 54B OF THE ACT, THE WORDS 'HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY' ARE SUBSTITUTED AND THE SECTION IS READ, IT WILL LEAD TO ABSURD RESULTS. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF, FOR THE WORD 'ASSESSEE', ONE CLASS OF ASSESSEES, VIZ., AN INDIVIDUAL, IS SUBSTITUTED AND THE SECTION IS READ, THEN, SECTION 548 MAKES SENSIBLE READING. IN THE FORMER CASE, THE PROVISION WOULD READ 'USED BY A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY OR A PARENT OF HIS', WHILE, IN THE LETTER, IT WOULD READ AS 'USED BY AN INDIVIDUAL OR A PARENT OF HIS' IT IS DIFFICULT TO CONCEIVE OF A PARENT OF OR FOR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY OR THE USER BY SUCH A PARENT OF HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY. FURTHER, THE USE OF THE EXPRESSION 'BY A PARENT OF HIS' OCCURRING IN SECTION 546 OF THE ACT INDICATES THAT IN ORDER TO CLAIM BENEFIT THEREUNDER, THE USER MUST BE AN ASSESSEE, WHO HAS A PARENT, OR A PARENT OF HIS THAT WOULD MEAN USER ONLY BY SUCH AN ASSESSEE AS HAS PARENT. OR USER BY A PARENT OF THE ASSESSEE THE USER 'BY HIS PARENT' CONTEMPLATED AND THE WORD 'HIS' EMPLOYED, CAN HAVE REFERENCE ONLY TO A LIVING PERSON LIKE AN INDIVIDUAL AND NOT TO AN ENTITY OR PERSON LIKE A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY. THE USER BY THE PARENT, ITA NO.378 /VIZAG/2015 DR. ADUSUMILLI SRIKANTH (HUF), VIJAYAWADA 7 WHICH WOULD ALSO QUALIFY FOR CLAIMING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54B WOULD BE INAPPLICABLE TO A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSE IS NONE OTHER THAN AN INDIVIDUAL. IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'ASSESSEE' USED IS ASCERTAINED FROM THE MEANING OF THE WORDS ASSOCIATED WITH IT, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE COMPANY THE WORD 'ASSESSEE' KEEPS, THAT WHAT HAD BEEN CONTEMPLATED IS ONLY AN INDIVIDUAL AND NOT A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY WE MAY ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE REASONING OF THE TRIBUNAL, IN THIS CASE, IS BASED UPON AN INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 54 OF THE ACT AND THE WORDS 'USED BY THE QSSESSEE OR A PARENT OF HIS MAINLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS OWN OR HIS PARENTS OWN RESIDENCE' HAD BEEN INTERPRETED AS CONTEMPLATING ONLY THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE WHO IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND NOT A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY OR A FIRM VIDE ROWJI SOJPAL V CIT (1957) 31 ITR 721 (BOM.) K.I. VISWAMBHARAN AND BROS. V. CIT (1973) 91 ITR 588 (KER) (FB) AND SHRIGOPAL RAMESHWARDAS V. ADDL. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 980 (MP). WE ARE RELIEVED OF THE NECESSITY OF MAKING A DETAILED REFERENCE TO THOSE CASES, AS THEY HAD ARISEN UNDER SECTION 12B(4) OF THE 1922 ACT AND SECTION 54 OF THE 1961 ACT, WHERE THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT FOUND IN SECTION 54B OF THE ACT. IT WOULD ALSO BE PERTINENT TO POINT OUT THAT, BY SECTION 19 OF THE FINANCE ACT, 1987, IN SECTION 54(1) OF THE ACT, A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY HAS ALSO BEEN INCLUDED. THE LEGISLATIVE CHANGE THUS BROUGHT ABOUT IS ALSO AN INDICATION THAT WHAT HAD BEEN CONTEMPLATED BY ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE ACT WAS NOT A HINDU UNDIVIDED ITA NO.378 /VIZAG/2015 DR. ADUSUMILLI SRIKANTH (HUF), VIJAYAWADA 8 FAMILY BUT ONLY AN INDIVIDUAL. WHILE A CHANGE HAD BEEN BROUGHT IN SECTION 54(1) OF THE ACT, SECTION 54B OF THE ACT HAD BEEN LEFT INTACT. THIS, IN OUR VIEW, ALSO CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THOUGH PARLIAMENT WAS FULLY ALIVE TO THE NEED FOR INCLUDING A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 54(1) OF THE ACT, FOR SOME REASONS, IT HAD NOT THOUGHT IT FIT TO DO SO IN A CASE FALLING UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT. THUS, ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE WORDS EMPLOYED AND INTERPRETING THE WORDS IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN USED AND THEIR COLLOCATION, WE HOLD THAT THE WORD ASSESSEE USED IN SECTION 54B WOULD BE APPLICABLE ONLY TO THEC ASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL AND WOULD NOT TAKE IN A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY. 2 FINANCE ACT 2012 BROUGHT A CLARIFICATION AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTING THE WORDS ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR HIS PARENT, OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, IN PLACE OF THE ASSESSEE OR A PARENT OF HIS 1. IN PRAVIN CHAND MOHAN KUMAR VS. CIT RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HELD AS FOLLOWS: THE WORD ASSESSEE IN SECTION 54(1) OR A PARENT OF HIS HUF HAS ANY PARENT NOR THE WORD HIS COULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR IT. THOUGH THE BENEFIT OF THIS SECTION HAS BEEN EXTENDED FROM A.Y. 1988 -89 TO HUF THE SAID AMENDMENT CANNO T BE CONSIDERED TO BE RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. 2. THE DECISION OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COUIRT APPLIES TO SECTION 54B ALSO ON THIS ISSUE. 3. NOT A CLARIFICATION AMENDMENT IS CLEAR FROM CLAUSE (18) WHICH SPECIFIES THE DATE FROM WHICH IT IS EFFECTIVE I.E. 1.4.2013 ONWARDS. HENCE NOT APPLICABLE TO A.Y. 2012 - 13. ITA NO.378 /VIZAG/2015 DR. ADUSUMILLI SRIKANTH (HUF), VIJAYAWADA 9 6.8 APPELLATE AUTHORITY [CIT(A)] UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT IS A CREATURE OF THE STATUTE. HENCE IT IS BOUNDEN DUTY OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT THE LAW AS PER THE EXTANT PROVISIONS. ANY LAW IS AS GOOD AS IT IS IMPLEMENTED. WHEN THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT DID NOT PROVIDE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, CIT(A) ACTING WITHIN FOUR CORNERS OF THE LAW HAS TO HOLD THAT ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD IS IN ORDER. FURTHER, JURISDICTION HIGH COURT DECISION ON THE VERY SAME ISSUE IN THE CASE OF DARAPANENI CHENNA KRISHNAYYA (HUF) V. CIT (2007) 291 ITR 98 (AP) IS BINDING ON ALL LOWER AUTHORITIES. HENCE, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND I CONFIRM THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS, WHICH HE MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A). 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A HUF AND THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS A.Y. 2012-13. AS PER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE OR A PARENT OF HIS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F. 1.4.2013, SECTION 54B OF THE ACT IS AMENDED, WHICH SAYS THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR HIS PARENT OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY. THE SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 APPLIES ONLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND NOT ITA NO.378 /VIZAG/2015 DR. ADUSUMILLI SRIKANTH (HUF), VIJAYAWADA 10 FOR THE A.Y. 2012-13. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT. HENCE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH DEC., 2017 SD/- SD/- ( . . ) ( . [ ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (V. DURGA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /VISAKHAPATNAM: /DATED : 20/12/2017 VG/SPS /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT DR. ADUSUMILLI SRIKANTH (HUF), D.NO.52-1-1/9A, 1 ST CROSS ROAD, NTR COLONY, VIJAYAWADA 2. / THE RESPONDENT THE ITO, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA 3. / THE PRINCIPAL CIT, VIJAYAWADA 4. ( ) / THE CIT (A), VIJAYAWADA 5. , , / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . [ / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM