ITAT rules in favor of assessee on section 54EC exemption & capital gain reevaluation

The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee in a case involving the disallowance of exemption under section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ITAT held that the assessee's investment in REC bonds complied with the six-month investment period requirement, emphasizing that the source of funds was not a determining factor for eligibility. Additionally, in a separate issue regarding a discrepancy in the amount received from the sale of property, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reevaluate the capital gain due to ambiguous findings by the Assessing Officer, ultimately dismissing the revenue's appeals in both matters.

---

---

Issues:
1. Disallowance of exemption u/s 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Discrepancy in the amount received against the sale of property.

Issue 1 - Disallowance of exemption u/s 54EC:
The Assessing Officer disallowed the exemption u/s 54EC for the assessee's investment in REC bonds, stating that the funds were not from capital gains. The assessee argued citing precedents allowing investment before receiving compensation. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, noting compliance with the six-month investment period requirement. The ITAT upheld the decision, emphasizing that Section 54EC only mandates timely investment in specified assets, not specifying the source of funds. The ITAT reasoned that once funds are in a bank account, it is challenging to trace their origin due to various transactions, supporting the assessee's eligibility for the deduction.

Issue 2 - Discrepancy in the amount received against the sale of property:
The Assessing Officer noted a discrepancy in the amount received against the sale of property, leading to the addition of Rs. 1,87,500 to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) found the Assessing Officer's observations ambiguous and directed a reevaluation of the capital gain. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the Assessing Officer's unclear findings warranted a review of the records to determine the correct capital gain. Consequently, the ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeals in both cases, affirming the CIT(A)'s orders.

---