ACIT, New Delhi V. Ajay Kaila, New Delhi

ITA 6907/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4350 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY KAPOOR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI C BEN CH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ITA NO. 6907/DEL/2015 [A.Y. 2012-13] THE A.C.I.T VS. SHRI AJAY KAILA CIRCLE 54(1) 128/B/1, OPP. VILLAGE KILOKAR I NEW DELHI HARINAGAR ASHRAM, MAHARANIBAGH NEW DELHI PAN : AACPK 5645 F [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] DATE OF HEARING : 31.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : .09.2017 ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANJAY KAPO OR, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SR.DR ORDER PER B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)- 18, NEW DELHI VIDE ORDER DATED 27.10.2015 F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING SOLITARY GR OUND OF APPEAL: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 49,53,675/- PM ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED - 2- ITA NO. 6907/DEL/2015 BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 54EC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 196 1 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT' FOR SHORT] TH AT THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM ONLY RS. 50 LAKHS DEDUCTION U/S 54EC. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT GURGAON FOR A CONSIDE RATION OF RS. 1,37,22,500/- AND HAS SHOWN LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SAME AT RS.99,53,675/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFER RED TO AS 'THE ACT' FOR SHORT] AT RS. 1 CRORE ON THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF 99,53,675/-. AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 54 EC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION ON THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER NHAI BONDS UNDER THE SAID PROVISION. THE QUESTION A ROSE IN THIS CASE AS TO WHAT EXTENT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE SO ENTITLED. THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED RS. 1 CRORE UNDER SECTION 54 EC. AS PER TH E ASSESSEE, HE IS ENTITLED TO 50 LAKH EXEMPTION IN EACH OF THE FINANC IAL YEAR TOTALLING TO RS. 1 CRORE AND IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM IT REFERRED TO VARIOUS DECISIONS MENTIONED IN PARA 5.6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NAMEL Y: A) ASPI CINWALA V. ASSTT. CIT{2012} 20 TAXMAN.COM 7 5(AHD-TRIB) B) RAM AGGARWAL V. JT. CIT {2002)81 ITD163 (MUM) C) IN ASSTT. CIT V. SHRI RAJ KUMARJAIN & SONS (HUF ) {2012} 19 TAXMAN.COM 27 (JP) - 3- ITA NO. 6907/DEL/2015 D) CBDT CIRCULAR NO 3/2008 FINANCE ACT 2007 FOR DE DUCTION IN RESPECT OF LONG TERM INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS. 4. HOWEVER THE AO RELYING ON THE JUDGEMENT OF RAJ K UMAR JAIN AND SONS HUF DELIVERED BY ITAT JAIPUR BENCH RESTRICTED THE EXEMPTION TO RS. 50 LAKH. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AT PARA 5.7 READS AS UNDER: THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED BUT NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE MATTER HAS NOT REACHED FINALITY EITHER IN THE HONBLE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT OR BEFORE HONBLE APEX COURT. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE JUDGEMENT GIVEN BY THE HONBLE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH I N ACIT CIRCLE-2 VS. SHRI RAJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS HUF, 31.01. 2012 WHICH IS GIVEN BELOW: THE DEDUCTION U/S 54EC SHOULD NOT EXCEED RS. 50 LA CS. THE WORD ANY FINANCIAL YEAR MENTIONED IN PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC REFERS TO THE INVESTMENT TO BE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION FROM CAPITAL GAIN. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PROVISO CAN NOT GIVE UNDUE BENEFIT TO ONE SECTION OF THE TAX PAYERS. IF AN ASSESSEE TRANSFERS CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE MONTH OF APRIL OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR THEN THE HE HAS TO MAKE INVESTMENT WITHIN 6 MO NTHS I.E. WITHIN THE SAME FINANCIAL YEAR. THE EXEMPTION FROM CAPITAL GAIN WILL BE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 50 LAKHS. IN THE CASE OF ANOTHER TAX PAYER WHO TRANSFER HIS ASSETS IN THE MONTH OF O CTOBER, THEN HE CANNOT CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 54EC BY PURCHASING RS . 50 LAKHS - 4- ITA NO. 6907/DEL/2015 BONDS IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSFER H AS TAKEN PLACE AND ANOTHER RS. 50 LAKHS IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIA L YEAR. THUS THE ASSESSEES WHO HAVE EARNED THE CAPITAL GAIN FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR CANNOT BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. IT W AS THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT INTERPRETATION OF PROVISO SHOULD NOT LEAD TO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST VARIOUS TAX PAYERS. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER, DELETED THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE A.O AND THE LD. CIT(A) AN D THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONS IDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY BOTH THE SIDES. FIRST OF A LL, IT IS RELEVANT TO REPRODUCE SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT, WHICH READS AS B ELOW: CAPITAL GAIN NOT TO BE CHARGED ON INVESTMENT IN CE RTAIN BONDS. 54EC. (1) WHERE THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF A LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSET (THE CAPITAL ASSET SO TRANS FERRED BEING HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE ORIGIN AL ASSET) AND THE ASSESSEE HAS, AT ANY TIME WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MO NTHS AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSFER, INVESTED THE WHOLE OR ANY PA RT OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET, THE CAPITAL GAIN SHALL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISI ONS OF THIS SECTION, THAT IS TO SAY, - 5- ITA NO. 6907/DEL/2015 (A) IF THE COST OF THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET IS NO T LESS THAN THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGI NAL ASSET, THE WHOLE OF SUCH CAPITAL GAIN SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UND ER SECTION AS: (B) IF THE COST OF THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET IS LE SS THAN THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSE T, SO MUCH OF THE CAPITAL GAIN AS BEARS TO THE WHOLE OF THE CAPITAL G AIN THE SAME PROPORTION AS THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE LONG-T ERM SPECIFIED ASSET BEARS TO THE WHOLE OF THE CAPITAL GAIN, SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 4S ; [PROVIDED THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2007 IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET BY AN ASSESSEE DURING ANY FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEE S.] THE FOLLOWING SECOND PROVISO SHALL BE INSERTED AFTE R THE EXISTING PROVISO TO SUBSECTION (1) OF SECTION 54EC BY THE FI NANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2014, W.E.F. 1-4-2015: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY AN ASSESSEE IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET, FROM CAPITAL GAINS ARISI NG FROM TRANSFER OF ONE OR MORE ORIGINAL ASSETS, DURING THE FINANCIA L YEAR IN WHICH THE ORIGINAL ASSET OR ASSETS ARE TRANSFERRED AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES . 7. THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN JUDICIAL OPINION ON THE I SSUE. IN SHRI ASPIN GINWALA VS. CIT [TS-192-ITAT-2012(AHD) THE HONBLE ITAT BENCH HELD THAT SECTION 54EC EXEMPTION IS AVAILABLE ON INVESTM ENT OF RS. 1 CRORE IN SPECIFIED BONDS MADE WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMI T FALLING IN TWO DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEARS. THE BENCH OBSERVED THAT PROVISO TO SEC 54EC - 6- ITA NO. 6907/DEL/2015 WAS CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS AND DID NOT RESTRICT INVESTM ENTS TO RS 50 LAKHS IF ELIGIBILITY PERIOD FALLS IN TWO DIFFERENT FINANC IAL YEARS. SIMILAR VIEW WAS HELD BY THE BANGALORE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI VIVEK JAIRAZBHOY VS. DCIT [TS-901-ITAT-20I2(BANG)] & PANAJI ITAT IN PANA JI ITAT IN SHANTABAI V. KAMAT VS. CIT REPORTED IN 142 ITD 769. 8. HOWEVER THE JAIPUR BENCH OF ITAT IN AC1T VS. SHR I RAJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF) [TS-142-ITAT-2012OJPR)] TOOK A CONTRAR Y VIEW AND HELD THAT SEC 54EC EXEMPTION WAS TO BE RESTRICTED TO RS 50 LAKHS, EVEN IF RS 1 CRORE WAS INVESTED IN SPECIFIED BONDS WITHIN PRES CRIBED TIME LIMIT FALLING IN TWO DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEARS. ITAT OBSE RVED THAT INTERPRETATION OF PROVISO TO SEC 54EC SHOULD NOT LE AD TO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST VARIOUS TAXPAYERS DEPENDING UPON DATE OF TR ANSFER. 9. THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CIT VS S JAI CHANDER REPORTED IN 370 ITR 579 [MAD] HAS HELD AS UNDER: THE KEY ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHET HER THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 54 EC(1) OF THE ACT WOULD RESTRICT THE BENEFIT OF INVESTMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS IN BONDS TO THAT FINANC IAL YEAR DURING WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD OR IT APPLIES TO ANY FI NANCIAL YEAR DURING THE SIX MONTHS PERIOD. - 7- ITA NO. 6907/DEL/2015 10. 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 IN VESTMENT IN CERTAIN BONDS. (1) WHERE THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES F ROM THE TRANSFER OF A LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET (THE CAPITAL ASSET SO TRANSFERRED BEING HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRE D TO AS THE ORIGINAL ASSET) AND THE ASSESSEE HAS, AT ANY TIME W ITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSFER, INVE STED THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET, THE CAPITAL GAIN SHALL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCO RDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THAT IS TO SA Y, A) IF THE COST OF THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET IS NOT LESS THAN THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF THE O RIGINAL 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 ORIGI NAL ASSET, SO MUCH OF THE CAPITAL GAIN AS BEARS TO THE WHOLE OF T HE CAPITAL GAIN THE SAME PROPORTION AS THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE LONG TERM SPECIFIED ASSET BEARS TO THE WHOLE OF THE CAPI TAL GAIN, SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45. - 8- ITA NO. 6907/DEL/2015 PROVIDED THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2007 IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET BY AN ASSESSEE DURING ANY FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAK H RUPEES. 11. ON A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE SAID PROVISI ON, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SECTION 54EC(1) OF THE ACT RESTRICTS THE TIME LIMIT FOR THE PERIOD OF INVESTMENT AFTER THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SO LD TO SIX MONTHS. THERE IS NO CAP ON THE INVESTMENT TO BE MADE IN BON DS. THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC(1) OF THE ACT SPECIFIES THE QUANTUM OF INVESTMENT AND IT STATES THAT THE INVESTMENT SO MAD E ON OR AFTER 1.4.2007 IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET BY AN ASS ESSEE DURING ANY FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES. I N 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 INVESTMEN T OF RS.50,00,000/- IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR, IT WOULD HAVE THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54EC(1 ) OF THE ACT. 12. THE LEGISLATURE NOTICING THE AMBIGUITY IN THE A BOVE SAID PROVISION, BY FINANCE (N0.2) ACT, 2014, WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2015, INSERTED AFTER THE EXISTING PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT, A SECOND PROVISO, WHICH READS AS UNDER: - 9- ITA NO. 6907/DEL/2015 PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY AN AS SESSEE IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET, FROM CAPITAL GAINS A RISING FROM TRANSFER OF ONE OR MORE ORIGINAL ASSETS, DURING ASS ET OR ASSETS ARE TRANSFERRED AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEA R DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES.', 13. AT THIS JUNCTURE, FOR BETTER CLARITY, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REFER TO THE NOTES ON CLAUSES - FINANCE BILL 2014 A ND THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS IN THE FINANCE (NO.2) BIL L. 2014, WHICH READ AS UNDER: NOTES ON CLAUSES - FINANCE BILL 2014: CL AUSE 23 OF THE BILL SEEKS TO AMEND SECTION 54EC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT R ELATING TO CAPITAL GAIN NOT TO BE CHARGED ON INVESTMENT IN CERTAIN BON DS. THE EXISTING PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT WHERE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TR ANSFER OF A LONG- TERM CAPITAL ASSET AND THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHIN A PE RIOD OF SIX MONTHS INVESTED THE WHOLE OR PART OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET, THE PROPORTIONATE CAPITAL GAINS SO INVESTED IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET OUT OF TOTAL CAPITAL GAIN SHALL NOT BE CHARGED TO TAX. THE PROVISO TO THE SAID SUB-SECTION PROVIDES THAT T HE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE LONG TERM SPECIFIED ASSET DURING ANY FINANCI AL 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 TH AT THE INVESTMENT - 10- ITA NO. 6907/DEL/2015 MADE BY AN ASSESSEE IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSE T, FROM CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM TRANSFER OF ONE OR MORE ORIGINAL ASSETS, DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORIGINAL ASSET OR ASSET S ARE TRANSFERRED AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED FI FTY LAKH RUPEES. THIS AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 201 5 AND WILL, ACCORDINGLY, APPLY IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 015- 16 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. MEMORANDUM: EXPLAINING THE PROVIS IONS 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 A SSESSEE HAS, AT ANY TIME WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, INVESTED THE WH OLE OR ANY PART OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE LONG TERM SPECIFIED ASSET, OUT OF THE WHOLE OF THE CAPITAL GAIN, SHALL NOT BE CHARGED TO TAX. THE PROV ISO TO THE SAID SUBSECTION 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 C REATED AN AMBIGUITY. AS A RESULT THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING DU RING THE YEAR AFTER THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER WERE INVESTED IN THE SPECIFI ED ASSET IN SUCH A MANNER SO AS TO SPLIT THE INVESTMENT IN TWO YEARS I .E., ONE WITHIN THE YEAR AND SECOND IN THE NEXT YEAR BUT BEFORE THE EXP IRY OF SIX MONTHS. - 11- ITA NO. 6907/DEL/2015 THIS RESULTED IN THE CLAIM FOR RELIEF OF ONE CRORE RUPEES AS AGAINST THE INTENDED LIMIT FOR RELIEF OF FIFTY LAKHS RUPEES. AC CORDINGLY, IT IS PROPOSED TO INSERT A PROVISO IN SUB-SECTION (1) SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY AN ASSESSEE IN THE LONG-TERM SPE CIFIED ASSET, OUT OF CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM TRANSFER OF ONE OR MO RE ORIGINAL ASSET, DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORIGINAL ASS ET OR ASSETS ARE TRANSFERRED AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR DO ES NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES. THIS AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL, 2015 AND WILL, ACCORDINGLY, APPLY IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. 14. THE LEGISLATURE HAS CHOSEN TO REMOVE THE AMBIGU ITY IN THE PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC(1) OF THE ACT BY INSERTING A SECOND PROVISO WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2015. THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAININ G THE PROVISIONS IN THE FINANCE (N0.2) BILL, 2014 ALSO STATES THAT T HE SAME WILL BE APPLICABLE FROM 1.4.2015 IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 AND THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLAT URE PROBABLY APPEARS TO BE THAT THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD BE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-2016 TO AVOID UNWANTED LITIGATIONS OF THE PREV IOUS YEARS. EVEN OTHERWISE, WE DO NOT WISH TO READ ANYTHING MORE INT O THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC(1) OF THE ACT, AS IT STOOD IN RELAT ION TO THE ASSESSEES. - 12- ITA NO. 6907/DEL/2015 IN ANY EVENT, FROM A READING OF SECTION 54EC AND TH E FIRST PROVISO, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TIME LIMIT FOR INVESTMENT IS SIX MON THS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND EVEN IF SUCH INVESTMENT FALLS UNDER TW O FINANCIAL YEARS, THE BENEFIT CLAIMED BY FIXE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENI ED. IT WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE, IF THE RESTRICTION ON THE INVEST MENT IN BONDS TO RS.50,00,000/- IS INCORPORATED IN SECTION 54EC(1) O F THE ACT ITSELF. HOWEVER, THE AMBIGUITY HAS BEEN REMOVED BY THE LEGI SLATURE 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 INT ERFERENCE BY THIS COURT. THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW ARE ANSWERE D AGAINST THE REVENUE AND THESE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 15. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENCES I N THE JUDICIAL OPINION ON THE ISSUE. APPARENTLY, THERE IS NO DECIS ION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HC IN THE MATTER. THE REASONING OF T HE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH HAS PERSUASIVE VALUE. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE SPIR IT OF THE PROVISO (SUPRA) WITH PROSPECTIVE EFFECT, THE DECISION OF HO N'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT AND THE LAW OF PRECEDENCE IN THE MATTER, FOLL OWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS S. JAICHANDER, DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THIS GROUND. - 13- ITA NO. 6907/DEL/2015 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON .09.2017. [KULDIP SINGH] [B.P. JAIN] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: SEPTEMBER, 2017 VL/ COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI