By K. B. Bhujle, Advocate
CIT vs. Subhash Vinayak Supnekar (Bom); ITA No. 1009 of
2014 dated 14/12/2016; (www.itatonline.org)
An Agreement to Sale for the subject property was entered
into on 21st February, 2006. The final sale took place under a Sale
Deed dated 5th April, 2007. The assessee invested an amount of Rs.50
lakh from the advance received under the Agreement to Sale in the Rural Electrification
Corporation Ltd. bonds on 2nd February, 2007. The Assessing Officer
as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the assessee is
not entitled to the benefit of section 54EC of the Act, as the amounts were
invested in the bonds prior to the sale of the subject property on 5th
April, 2007. The Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee by following the
decision of its coordinate bench in Bhikulal Chandak HUF vs. Income Tax
Officer 126 TTJ 545 wherein it has been held that where an assessee makes
investment in bonds as required u/s. 54EC of the Act on receipt of advance as
per the Agreement to Sale, then the assessee is entitled to claim the benefit
of Section 54EC of the Act.
On appeal by the Revenue, the Bombay High Court upheld the
decision of the Tribunal and as under:
“i) The short question is whether an amount
received on sale of a capital asset as an advance on the basis of Agreement to
Sale and the same being invested in specified bonds before the final sale,
would entitle the assessee to the benefit of Section 54EC of the Act.
ii) The Sale Deed dated 5th April, 2007
records in clause (d) thereof the fact that the Agreement to Sale had been
entered into on 21st February, 2006 in respect of the subject
property and the amounts being received by the vendor (respondent assessee)
under that Agreement to Sale. Thus, these amounts when received as advance
under an Agreement to Sale of a capital asset are invested in specified bonds
the benefit of Section 54EC of the Act is available. In the above view, the
Tribunal holds that the facts of the present case are similar to the facts
before the Tribunal in Bhikulal Chandak HUF (supra). The Revenue does
not dispute the same before us. Moreover, on almost identical facts, this Court
in Parveen P. Bharucha vs. DCIT, 348 ITR 325, held that the earnest
money received on sale of asset, when invested in specified bonds u/s. 54EC, is
entitled to the benefit of section 54EC. This was in the context of reopening
of an assessment and reliance was placed upon CBDT Circular No. 359 dated 10th
May, 1983 in the context of section 54E.
iii) The Revenue had preferred an appeal against
the order of the Tribunal in Bhikulal Chandak HUF (supra) to this Court
(Nagpur Bench) being Income Tax Appeal No.68 of 2009. This Court by an order
dated 22nd August, 2010 refused to entertain the Revenue’s above
appeal from the decision of the Tribunal in Bhikulal Chandak HUF (supra).
In the above view, the question as proposed for our consideration in the
present facts does not give rise to any substantial question of law.”
