, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI . . , !' , # , $ BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I.T.A. NO.7462/M/13 ( # % &% / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) MS. DIPTI N. MODI UNIT NO.5, SHAH INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, VEERA DESAI ROAD, ANDHERI (WEST) MUMBAI - 400056 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD(8)(1)(3) ROOM NO. 206, 2 ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABPM8977F ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / DATE OF HEARING: 03.09.2015 !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16.12.2015 #$ / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.09.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS)-16, MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE LEARNED CIT (A)] RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI SANJIV M. SHAH DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI KAILASH GAIKWAD ITA NO. 7462/M/13 A.Y. 2010-11 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN GRANTING EXEMPTION U/S. 54EC AT RS. 50 LAKHS AS AGA INST CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AT RS. 60,25,296/-. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR OF M/S. EXIM MULTIMED IA PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND SHOWS INCOME FROM SALARY, HOUS E PROPERTY, BUSINESS AND OTHER SOURCES. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD UNITS OF PRUDENTIAL ICICI SERVICES, DSPML WORLD GOLD, AIG WO RLD GOLD FUND AND THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SITUATED AT UNIT NO.10/11, RATNA JYOT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, IRLA LANE, VILE PARLE WEST, BOMBAY AND ANOTHER PROPERTY AT SHREEJI AVENUE BARODA. AGAINST, THE SAID TRANSACTIONS THE ASSESSEE HAS SHO WN AN AMOUNT OF RS.60,25,296/- AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961( IN SHORT THE ACT) IN RESPECT OF INVEST MENTS MADE IN SPECIFIED CAPITAL GAIN BOND (RS.12,40,000/- ON 15.04.2010, RS.45,30,0 00/- ON 29.03.2010 AND RS.4,70,000/- ON 15.10.2009). THE ASSESSING OFFICE R RESTRICTED THE SAID CLAIM TO RS.50.00 LAKHS. SINCE THE NOTIFICATION NO.380 OF 2 006 DATED 22.12.2006 ISSUED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT PRESCRIBE A MONETARY LIMIT OF RS .50.00 LAKHS IN A F.Y.. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE LEA RNED CIT(A) AND LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. AGG RIEVED BY THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEAR NED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CASE FILES CAREFU LLY. THE SOLE CONTROVERSY IS THAT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN TO THE TUNE OF RS.60,25, 296/- IS EXEMPTED U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT OR NOT. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT T O THE TUNE OF RS.50 LAKHS DURING THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2010 AND INVESTED AN AMOUNT O F RS.12,40,000/- IN THE SUCCEEDING FINANCIAL YEAR. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TH AT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENTS WERE ITA NO. 7462/M/13 A.Y. 2010-11 3 MADE WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. NO W IT IS TO BE SEEN WHETHER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS JUSTIFIABLE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 54EC OF ACT OR NOT. THE IDENTICAL QUESTION HAS COM E BEFORE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI IN A CASE TITLED AS MRS. LILAVATI M. SAYANI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER CITED AS (2014) 49 TAXMANN.COM 579. FURTHE R, THE MATTER OF CONTROVERSY AGAIN CAME BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN A CASE TITLED AS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI VS. C. JAICHANDER CITED AS ( 2015)53 TAXMANN.COM 466. IN THE SAID LAW IT IS SPECIFICALLY HELD THAT: IN VIEW OF SECTION 54EC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 THE FIRST PROVISO, IT WAS CLEAR THAT TIME LIMI T FOR INVESTMENT WAS SIX MONTHS FROM DATE OF TRANSFER AND EVEN IF SU CH INVESTMENT FELT UNDER TWO FINANCIAL YEARS, BENEFIT CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE DENIED AND THERE WAS NO CAP ON INVESTMENT IN BONDS. IT WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE THAT ASSESSEE WAS ELIG IBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54EC IN RESPECT OF INVESTME NT. 5. IN VIEW OF THE LAW SETTLED IN CASE OF COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI VS. C. JAICHANDER CITED AS (2015)53 TAXMANN.COM 466 AND BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENT OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF MUMBAI CITED ABOV E, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER IN QUESTION IS NOT LIABLE TO BE SUSTAINABLE I N THE EYES OF LAW THEREFORE THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL IS RESTORED TO FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE EXEMPTION U/S. 54EC OF RS.60,25,296/- AND PASS THE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS HER EBY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH DECEMBER , 2015. SD/- SD/- (B.R.BASKARAN) (AMARJIT SINGH) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %& # /JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ( MUMBAI; )# DATED : DECEMBER, 2015 MP MP MP MP ITA NO. 7462/M/13 A.Y. 2010-11 4 ( ) *# !+ ,+& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. * ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. * / CIT 5. -./ &&01 , 01' , ' ( / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. /34 5 / GUARD FILE. ( / BY ORDER, - & //TRUE COPY// -/' (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ' ( / ITAT, MUMBAI