KETAN CHEMICALS, MUMBAI V. ITO 20(1)4, MUMBAI

ITA 6636/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0963 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASGHAR ZAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL R SARDA

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - A BENCH. .. , ! '#$ , # BEFORE S/SH. I.P. BANSAL,JUDICIAL MEMBER & RAJENDRA ,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /.ITA NO.6636/MUM/2013 , % & /ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10. M/S. KETAN CHEMICALS, 5, KRISHNA APARTMENTS, CD BARFIWALA ROAD, ANDHERI (W) MUMBAI 400 058 PAN: APDPP1993B % / VS. ITO 20(1)-4, 3 RD FLOOR, PRIMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI 400012 ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAHUL R. SARDA (AR) RESPON DENT BY : SHRI ASGHAR ZAIN (DR) / DATE OF HEARING :08.04.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :08 .04 .2015 #( / O R D E R PER I.P.BANSAL ( JM) : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) DATED 14 TH OCTOBER 2011, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)[C IT(A) ERRED IN APPROVING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.23,90 ,693/- OUT OF THE TOTAL CLAIM OF EXEMPTIONS OF RS.73,90,693/- BY THE APPELLANT U/S.5 4EC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. WHILE DOING SO, THE LEARNED CIT(A) MERELY RELIED ON THE LOGIC WHILE COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC WHICH IS CLEAR & UNAMBIGUOUS & WHEREIN ONLY ONE INTERPRETATION IS PO SSIBLE ACCORDING TO WHICH, THE APPELLANT ARE ENTITLE TO THEIR FULL CLAIM OF EXEMPT IONS OF RS.73,90,693/- U/S.54EC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN REJECTING THE V ARIOUS RELEVANT AND GERMANE DECISION CITED AND RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE PREYS THAT DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTIONS OF RS.23,90,693/- MADE U/S.54EC BE DELETED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO AND /OR AME ND AND/OR DELETE AND/OR MODIFY AND/OR ALTER THE AFORESAID GROUND OF APPEAL AS AND WHEN THE OCCASION DEMANDS. 4.ALL THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE INDEPENDE NT, IN THE ALTERNATIVE & WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. M/S. KETAN CHEMICALS . 2 2. THE ISSUE RELATED TO CLAIM OF EXEMPTION FROM LON G TERM CAPITAL GAIN U/S. 54EC. ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.80,00,000/-IN BONDS AS PER CHART BELOW; NATURE OF INVESTMENT AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT DATE OF INVESTMENT REC BONDS 25,00,000/- 31.03.2009 NHA BONDS 25,00,000/- 31.03.2009 REC BONDS 30,00,000/- 80,00,000/- 30.04.2009 3. ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF RS.73,90,693/- U/S 54EC AGAINST THE ABOVE INVESTMENT OF RS.80,00,000/-. THE EXEMPTION W AS RESTRICTED BY THE AO TO A SUM OF RS.50,00,000/- ON THE GROUND THAT PROVISIO NS DO NOT ALLOW TO ASSESSEE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S.54EC MORE THAN THE SUM OF RS .50,00,000/-. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAS ACCR UED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR A PROPERTY WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED BY DEED OF ASSIGNMEN T DATED 11 TH NOVEMBER 2008. THUS, THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BONDS IS WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ASSE T FOR WHICH CAPITAL GAIN IS OFFERED TO TAX. THE ACTION OF THE AO HAS BEEN CONFI RMED BY THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED HENCE AS FILED AFOREMENTIONED GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOT ICE THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE NOT ONLY BY THE DECIS ION OF MUMBAI ITAT IN THE CASE OF DR. KUMAR M. DHAWALE VS. ACIT, ORDER DATED 09.01.2015 IN ITA NO.7585/MUM/2012 COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED THAT AT PA GES 1 TO 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK BUT ALSO BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. C. JAICHANDER 370 ITR 579 (MAD), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION OF RS.1 CRORE U/S.54EC IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT OF RS.50,00,000/- MADE IN TWO DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEAR . M/S. KETAN CHEMICALS . 3 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY AO AND CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTENT IONS HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED, ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRE SENT APPEAL IS COVERED AS AFOREMENTIONED DECISION OF MUMBAI ITAT & HONBLE MA DRAS HIGH COURT: RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DELETE THE ADDI TION AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT , THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS DAY OF 8 TH APRIL 2015. !'# 08.04.2015 + , SD/- SD/- ( '#$ / RAJENDRA) ( . . / I.P.BANSAL ) - / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER . '/ MUMBAI ; !' DATED : 08.04.2015 AK PATEL* #( ) *+,- .#-&+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 0 ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. 0 / CIT(A) , MUMBAI 5. 34+ 5567 , 67 , . '/ / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. +9: ; / GUARD FILE. #(% / BY ORDER, 3 5 //TRUE COPY// //0 ' ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , . '/ / ITAT, MUMBAI