YAHA E. DHARIWALA, MUMBAI V. DCIT 15(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5501/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 550119914 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 04-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K NAYAK
• Assessee Lawyers: K GOPAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Period of limitation
• Section: 147; 148; 28; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, A ND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5501/MUM./2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 ) MR. YAHYA E. DHARIWALA 116/118, MANIHAR BUILDING P.DMELLO ROAD, CARNAC BUNDER MUMBAI 400 009 PAN ADLPD6964C .. APPELLANT V/S DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-15(2), MUMBAI .... RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MR. K. GOPAL REVENUE BY : MR. A.K. NAYAK DATE OF HEARING 04.11.2011 DATE OF ORDER 25.11.2011 O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGA INST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 127 TH JULY 2009, PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-XV , MUMBAI, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF A SCRAP DEALER. DURING THE RELEVANT ASS ESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE SOLD EQUITY SHARES OF TWO PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANIES NAMELY M/S. MR. YAHYA E. DHARIWALA ITA NO. 5501/MUM./2009 2 SUPREME NONWOVENS PVT. LTD. AND M/S. BHILAD TEXTILE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF ` 1,35,00,000 AND ` 86,25,000 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE CHOSE TO INVEST THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERAT ION IN THE BONDS SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ). THE ASSESSEE INVESTED ` 12,50,000 IN SIDBI BONDS AND ` 1,97,50,000 IN REC BONDS. OUT OF ` 1,97,50,000 INVESTED IN REC BONDS, ` 45,00,000 WAS INVESTED ON 30 TH AUGUST 2005. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCO ME CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54EC. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE DATE OF SALE OF SHARES WAS 24 TH FEBRUARY 2005. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS THAT THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF SH ARES IS 28 TH FEBRUARY 2005. ON THE GROUND THAT INVESTMENT OF ` 45,00,000, WAS NOT MADE IN ELIGIBLE / SPECIFIED BONDS WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM 24 TH FEBRUARY 2005, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION CL AIMED UNDER SECTION 54EC. 3. THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED UNDER S ECTION 143(1) ON 15 TH JANUARY 2006. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT IN THE MONTH OF JULY 2006, PROPOSING ENHANCEMENT OF ASSESSMENT BY RESTRICTING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 5 4EC TO THE EXTENT OF ` 45,00,000. THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY DISPUTING THE P ROPOSED RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 154. THEREAFTER, NOTICE DATED 26TH FE BRUARY 2008, WAS SERVED UNDER SECTION 148 OF ACT, REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED BY SUBMITTING THAT THE RETURN OF I NCOME FILED ON 31 ST DECEMBER 2005, MAY BE TAKEN AS THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED INCOMPLIANCE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED AN ORDER DATED 3 RD NOVEMBER 2008, UNDER SECTION 143(3)(II) R/W SECTIO N 147 OF THE ACT, WHEREIN HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 54EC TO THE TUNE OF ` 45,00,000 ON THE GROUND THAT THE SALE OF SHARES HAV E TAKEN PLACE ON 24 TH DECEMBER 2005, AND WHEREAS INVESTMENTS IN REC BONDS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 45,00,000, WAS MADE ON 30 TH AUGUST 2005, WHICH IS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF SALE. MR. YAHYA E. DHARIWALA ITA NO. 5501/MUM./2009 3 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE T HE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. THE COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS) HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETECTED THAT THE PAYMENT OF STAM P DUTY WAS ON 24 TH FEBRUARY 2005, AND THAT THE SHARE TRANSFER FORM WAS SOLD ON 24 TH APRIL 2005. HE HELD THAT EXTINGUISHMENT OF RIGHT IN SHARES WAS ON/OR BEFORE 24 TH FEBRUARY 2005, AS VALUE / PRICE OF SHARES INCREASE / DECREASE AT EVERY MOMENT IN EVERY DAY. HE FURTHER WENT TO OBSERVE THA T STAMP DUTY MAY CHANGE EVERY DAY IN RESPECT OF PRICE OF SHARES. HE REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SHARE TRANSFER HAD TAKEN PLAC E ON 28 TH FEBRUARY 2005, BASED ON DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE REGISTRAR OF COMP ANIES. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE FO LLOWING GROUND:- 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) [HER EINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)] HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE O RDER DATED 27.07.2009 UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM MADE UNDER SECTION 54EC OF TH E ACT UY HOLDING THAT THE SHARES WERE TRANSFERRED BY THE APPELLANT O N 24.02.2005 AND THEREBY THE INVESTMENT MADE ON 30.08.2005 IS BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF SIX MONTH, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APP ELLANT HAD TRANSFERRED THE SHARES ALONGWITH OTHER DHARIWALA GR OUP MEMBERS ON 28.02.2005 AND THE SAME IS ALSO REFLECTED IN THE CO MPANIES RECORD SUBMITTED TO THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES. THEREFORE, THE INVESTMENT MADE ON 30.08.2005 IS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX MONT HS AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE SHA RES IN QUESTION ARE THE SHARES OF A PVT. LTD. COMPANY AND THE SHARE S OF A PVT. LTD. COMPANY CAN BE TRANSFERRED ONLY AFTER THE APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING. IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAS APPROVED THE T RANSFER OF SHARES IN THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING HELD ON 28.02.2005 A ND HENCE, THE INVESTMENT MADE ON 30.08.2005 IS WITHIN THE PRESCRI BED PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT. 5. BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNSEL, MR. K. GOPAL, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY TOOK T HE DATE OF STAMPING OF SHARE TRANSFER FORM, AS THE DATE OF TRANSFER. HE SU BMITTED THAT STAMPING OF SHARE TRANSFER FORM TAKES PLACE MUCH BEFORE THE DAT E OF ACTUAL EXECUTION OF TRANSFER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SHARES WERE OF A PR IVATE LIMITED COMPANY MR. YAHYA E. DHARIWALA ITA NO. 5501/MUM./2009 4 AND THE QUESTION OF VARIATION IN THE MARKET RATE ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS, DOES NOT ARISE. HE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE CASE OF PRIVA TE LIMITED COMPANY, SHARE TRANSFER TAKES PLACE ONLY WHEN THE BOARD OF DIRECTO RS APPROVE THE TRANSFER. THE PURCHASER CONFIRMED THAT THE DATE OF TRANSFER I S 28 TH FEBRUARY 2005. HE SUBMITTED THAT FROM THE RECORDS FILED WITH THE REGI STRAR OF COMPANIES IN THE FORM OF ANNUAL RETURN, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DATE OF TRANSFER WAS ONLY 28 TH FEBRUARY 2005 AND NOT 24 TH FEBRUARY 2005, AS ALLEGED. HE SUBMITTED THAT, IN ANY EVENT, SECTION 54EC REQUIRES THAT THE INVESTMEN T SHOULD BE MADE IN A SPECIFIED ASSETS AT ANY TIME WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSFER AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPLIED WI TH THIS CONDITION. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, LEARNED COUNSEL RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS FOR THE EXPRESSION MONTH USED IN THE SECTION. CIT V/S BRIJLAL LOHIA AND MAHABIR PRASAD KHEMKA, [1980] 124 ITR 0485 (CAL.); AND CIT V/S KADRI MILLS (COIMBATORE) LTD. [1977] 106 ITR 0846 (MAD). 6. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE WORD MONTH HAS TO BE RECKONED ACCORDING TO BRITISH CALENDAR IN TERMS OF SECTION 3(35) OF THE G ENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897. 7. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, MR. A.K. NAIK, ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, SUBMITTED THAT THE DATE 24 TH FEBRUARY 2005 OR 28 TH FEBRUARY 2005, DOES NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD, ADMITTEDLY, INVESTED ONLY ON 30 TH AUGUST 2005, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, IS BEYOND THE PERIOD O F SIX MONTHS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE COMMIS SIONER (APPEALS) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSFER OF SHARES HAS TAKEN ON 24 TH FEBRUARY 2005. 8. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HEARD. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ON A PERUSAL OF THE P APERS ON RECORD, AS WELL AS THE CASE LAWS CITED BEFORE US, WE HOLD AS FOLLOW S:- 9. THE SHARES THAT WERE TRANSFERRED WERE OF A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY. UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, ACCORDING TO THE PRO VISIONS AS CONTAINED IN MR. YAHYA E. DHARIWALA ITA NO. 5501/MUM./2009 5 SECTION 3(1)(III), A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY IS A C OMPANY WHICH RESTRICTS THE RIGHT TO TRANSFER ITS SHARES. ONCE THE BOARD OF DIR ECTORS APPROVE THE TRANSFER, THEN ONLY THE PROCESS OF TRANSFER OF SHARES CAN BE SAID TO BE COMPLETED IN CASE OF A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY. THE ASSESSEES A NNUAL RETURN FILED BEFORE THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES DISCLOSED THAT THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF TRANSFER WAS 28 TH FEBRUARY 2005. THE PURCHASER CONFIRMS THAT THE DAT E OF TRANSFER IS 28 TH FEBRUARY 2005. BOARD RESOLUTION APPROVING TRANSFER OF SHARES WAS PASSED ON 25 TH FEBRUARY 2005. JUST BECAUSE STAMPING WAS DONE ON 2 4 TH FEBRUARY 2005 OF BLANK FORMS, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDE D THAT THERE IS TRANSFER ON 24 TH FEBRUARY 2005. THUS, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE DATE OF TRANSFER IS 28 TH FEBRUARY 2005. HENCE, THE INVESTMENT MADE ON 30 TH AUGUST 2005, WAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE ACT. 10. EVEN IF THE DATE OF TRANSFER IS TO BE TAKEN AS 24 TH FEBRUARY 2005, THE WORDING USED IN THE SECTION IS AT ANY TIME WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSFER . UNDER THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897, MONTH IS DEFINED AS FOLLOWS:- MONTH SHALL MEAN THE MONTH RECKONED ACCORDING TO T HE BRITISH CALENDAR. 11. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN KADRI MILLS (COIMB ATORE) LTD. (SUPRA) HELD THAT THE DEFINITION UNDER THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897, WILL APPLY TO THE TERM MONTH OCCURRING IN THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, AS THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONTEXT TO EXCLUDE THE INVOCATION OF THIS DE FINITION. THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN BRIJLAL LOHIA AND MAHABIR PR ASAD KHEMKA (SUPRA), HELD THAT AS MONTH IS NOT DEFINED UNDER THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961, THE EXPRESSION USED UNDER THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897, SHOULD BE APPLIED. 12. IN THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE TERM MONTH HAS BEEN USED IN CERTAIN SECTIONS AND WHEREVER THE LEGISLATURE WANTE D TO SPECIFY THE NUMBER OF DAYS, IT WAS STATED AS SUCH IN THOSE SECTIONS. F OR E.G., IN SECTION 143(2)(II) OF THE ACT, THE PROVISO TO THIS SECTION READS AS FO LLOWS:- MR. YAHYA E. DHARIWALA ITA NO. 5501/MUM./2009 6 PROVIDED THAT NO NOTICE UNDER CLAUSE (II) SHALL BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE EN D OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN IS FURNISHED. 13. IN THIS PROVISO, THE EXPRESSION SIX MONTHS IS USED AS IN CASE OF SECTION 54EC. THIS CAN BE COMPARED WITH MANY OTHER SECTIONS IN THE ACT, WHEREIN THE PERIOD HAS BEEN DESCRIBED IN A NUMBER O F DAYS. FOR E.G., 1. SECTION 6: RESIDENCE IN INDIA SECTION 6(1) WHILE PROVIDING THE TIME LIMIT TO DETE RMINE RESIDATION STATUS WAS THE LANGUAGE 1(A) IS IN INDIA IN THAT YEAR FOR A PERIOD OR PERIO DS AMOUNTING IN ALL TO ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-TWO DAYS OR MORE ; OR (C) HAVING WITHIN THE FOUR YEARS PRECEDING THAT YEA R BEEN IN INDIA FOR A PERIOD OR PERIODS AMOUNTING IN ALL TO THREE H UNDRED AND SIXTY-FIVE DAYS OR MORE, IS IN INDIA FOR A PERIOD OR PERIODS AMOUNTING IN ALL TO SIXTY DAYS OR MORE IN THAT YEAR. [EXPLANATION.IN THE CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL, (A) BEING A CITIZEN OF INDIA, WHO LEAVES INDIA IN A NY PREVIOUS YEAR [AS A MEMBER OF THE CREW OF AN INDIAN SHIP AS DEFINED IN CLAUSE (18) OF SECTION 3 OF THE MERCHANT SHIPPING A CT, 1958 (44 OF 1958), OR] FOR THE PURPOSES OF EMPLOYMENT OUTSID E INDIA, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-CLAUSE (B) BEING A CITIZEN OF INDIA, OR A PERSON OF INDIAN ORIGIN WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION TO CLAUSE (E) OF, WHO, B EING OUTSIDE INDIA, COMES ON A VISIT TO INDIA IN ANY PREVIOUS YE AR, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-CLAUSE (C) SHALL APPLY IN RELATIO N TO THAT YEAR AS IF FOR THE WORDS SIXTY DAYS , OCCURRING THEREIN, THE WORDS ONE HUNDRED AND [EIGHTY-TWO] DAYS HAD BEEN SUBSTITUTED.] 2. SECTION 10: INCOMES NOT INCLUDED IN TOTAL INCOME SECTION 1O(6)(VI)WAS THE WORDS --- PERIOD OF NINET Y DAYS IN SUCH PROVISIONS YEAR WHILE LAYING THE CONDITIONS (VI)(B) HIS STAY IN INDIA DOES NOT EXCEED IN THE AG GREGATE A PERIOD OF NINETY DAYS IN; SUCH PREVIOUS YEAR (VIII) ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD SALARI ES RECEIVED BY OR DUE TO ANY SUCH INDIVIDUAL BEING A NON-RESIDENT AS REMUNERATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED IN CONNECTION WITH HIS EMPLOY MENT ON A FOREIGN SHIP WHERE HIS TOTAL STAY IN INDIA DOES NOT EXCEED IN THE AGGREGATE A PERIOD OF NINETY DAYS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR MR. YAHYA E. DHARIWALA ITA NO. 5501/MUM./2009 7 3. SECTION 54(E) CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF CAPITA L ASSETS NOT TO BE CHARGED IN CERTAIN CASES. (1B) WHERE ON THE FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITIONS S PECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (1A), THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET REFERRED TO IN THAT SUBSECTION IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-SECTION (1), THE ASSESSEE SHALL, WITHIN A PERIOD OF NINETY DAYS FROM THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS RECKONED FROM THE DATE OF SUCH DEPOSIT, FURNISH TO THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER A CERTI FICATE FROM THE OFFICER REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) OF SUBSECTION (1A ) TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN ANY LOAN OR ADVANCE ON THE SECURITY OF SUCH DEPOSIT DURING THE SAID PERIOD OF THREE YEARS. 4. SECTION 92(D) : MAINTENANCE AND KEEPING OF INFOR MATION AND DOCUMENT BY PERSONS ENTERING INTO AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. (3) THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS) MAY, IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT, REQUIRE AN Y PERSON WHO HAS ENTERED INTO AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION TO FU RNISH ANY INFORMATION OR DOCUMENT IN RESPECT THEREOF, AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1), WITHIN A PERIOD O F THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF A NOTICE ISSUED IN THIS REGARD PROVIDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSI ONER (APPEALS) MAY, ON AN APPLICATION MADE BY SUCH PERSO N, EXTEND THE PERIOD OF THIRTY DAYS BY A FURTHER PERIOD NOT E XCEEDING THIRTY DAYS . 5. SEC ON 142 : INQUIRY BEFORE ASSESSMENT. (2C) EVERY REPORT UNDER SUB-SECTION (2A) SHALL BE F URNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER WITHIN SUCH PER IOD AS MAY BE SPECIFIED BY [ASSESSING] OFFICER: PROVIDED THAT THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER MAY, [SUO MOT U, OR] ON AN APPLICATION MADE IN THIS BEHALF BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOR ANY GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON, EXTEND THE SAID PERIOD BY SUCH F URTHER PERIOD OR PERIODS AS HE THINKS FIT ; SO, HOWEVER, THAT THE AG GREGATE OF THE PERIOD ORIGINALLY FIXED AND THE PERIOD OR PERIODS SO EXTEN DED SHALL NOT, IN ANY CASE, EXCEED ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DAYS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE DIRECTION UNDER SUB-SECTION (2A) IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. SECTION 153 : TIME-LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSME NT UNDER (B)(VIII) THE PERIOD COMMENCING FROM THE DATE ON WH ICH A REFERENCE FOR EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION IS MADE BY AN AUTHORITY COM PETENT UNDER AN AGREEMENT REFERRED TO IN OR AND ENDING WITH THE DAT E ON WHICH THE INFORMATION SO REQUESTED IS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISS IONER OR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS , WHICHEVER IS LESS,] SHALL BE EXCLUDED: MR. YAHYA E. DHARIWALA ITA NO. 5501/MUM./2009 8 PROVIDED THAT WHERE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE EXCLUSION OF THE AFORESAID PERIOD, THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION REFERRED TO IN CLA USE (A) OR CLAUSE (B) OF THIS [SUB-SECTION] AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOR MAKING AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, AS THE CASE MA Y BE, IS LESS THAN SIXTY DAYS , SUCH REMAINING PERIOD SHALL BE EXTENDED TO SIXTY DAYS AND THE AFORESAID PERIOD OF LIMITATION SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY. [EMPHASIS OWN] 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND FROM THE LANGUA GE IN SECTION 54EC, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SIX MONTHS PERIOD SHOULD BE RECKONED FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE TRANSFER TAKES PLACE. AS THE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE ON 30 TH AUGUST 2005, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTE D A PART OF THE CAPITAL GAIN WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MON THS AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE LONG TERM ASSET IN QUESTION IN SPEC IFIED ASSETS. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 15. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH NOVEMBER 2011 SD/- V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 25 TH NOVEMBER 2011 COPY TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE RESPONDENT; (3) THE CIT(A), MUMBAI, CONCERNED; (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, G BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI