TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 618
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for exemption u/s 54EC without appreciating the fact that the investment was made within 6 months from the date of transfer i.e. 29-06-2004* 2. The Ld. CITCA) erred in holding that the confirmation letter dt. 10-07- 2004 for possession was not filed before the A.D. and thus holding that is an afterthought to cover six months, without appreciating the fact that the said letter was filed before the A.D. and this is confirmed in the Assessment order at para 4 page 2, wherein the Assessing officer has reproduced assessee's letter dt.06-09-2007. 3. The Ld. CITCA) failed to appreciate the fact that the investment is made on 23.12.2004 and the cheque has been cleared on 29.12.2004., however, the bond was issued on 31-12-2004 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 31.12.2004. Thus, as per AO, it was beyond period of six months as stipulated in section 54EC. Accordingly, it was held by the AO that benefit of deduction u/s 54EC was not allowable to the assessee. The assessee contested the matter before the Ld. CIT(A). After considering all the submissions and evidences placed by the assessee, it was held by the Ld. CIT(A) in the appeal order that going by the date of full and final settlement, the date of transfer would be 29th of June, 2004. According to the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee made investment in the bonds on 31.12.2004. It was held by Ld. CIT(A) that even if the date of transfer was taken as 29th of June 2004 and date of investment being 31.12.2004, it fell beyond the period of six months and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of the cheques not having been dishonored but having been encashed, the payment related back to the date of the receipt of the cheques and in law the dates of payments were the dates of the delivery of the cheques. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order of Ld. CIT(A) and that of the AO and submitted that the benefit has been rightly denied. 6. We have heard both the parties very carefully. With a view to make things simple, let us first take into consideration the undisputed facts on record with respect to various dates. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that the date of transfer of original asset is 29th of June 2004. The Revenue has not filed any appeal and Ld DR has not disputed the order of Ld. CIT(A) with respect to this fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 (A.Y. 2010-11) Tribunal was right in law and on facts in canceling the penalty levied u/s. 271(l)(a), observing that month meant calendar month and not the lunar month of 28 or 30 days. This issue was dealt at some length by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Kadri Mill (Caimbatore) Ltd. (supra). In this case, the observation of the Hon'ble Court was that IT Act, 1961 itself does not define the word "month" however Section 3 of General Clauses Act, 1987 define the word "month" means a month reckoned according to British calendar. In this context a decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High pronounced in the case of CIT v. Brijlal Lohia & Mahabir Prasad Khemka [1980] 124 ITR 485/ [1981] 5 Taxman 93 has also been generally cited wh....