2016 (5) TMI 1090

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hese appeals, we heard these appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order. 2. First, let's take Revenue's appeal in I.T.A. No.3171/Mds/1992. 3. Dr. B. Nischal, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee discounted the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) bonds and received entire interest of Rs. 3,52,500/- during the assessment year under consideration. However, the same was not offered for taxation. The assessee has admitted only a sum of Rs. 1,07,708/- being the proportionate interest for eleven months. According to the Ld. D.R., since the assessee has received entire amount of Rs. 3,52,500/- during the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... offered the proportionate interest to the extent of Rs. 1,07,708/-. The CIT(Appeals) has rightly found that the reopening was due to change of opinion, therefore, he cancelled the assessment on jurisdiction also. According to the Ld. counsel, the Assessing Officer is not justified in reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee discounted the IDBI bonds and received a sum of Rs. 3,52,500/- in the year under consideration. The interest on the bonds was spread over for 36 months. What was received by the assessee is the entire interest for 36 months in advance. This Tribunal is of the considere....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rs. 17,14,486/-. According to the Ld. counsel, the authorities below ought to have allowed the entire claim as exemption under Section 48(2) and 54E of the Act. 7. On the contrary, Dr. B. Nischal, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee filed revision petition under Section 264 before the Administrative Commissioner. The Administrative Commissioner found that any deduction before allowing under Section 54E of the Act, more particularly deduction under Section 48(i)(b) of the Act, has to be restricted only with regard to the amount invested in IDBI bonds. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that deduction under Section 48(i)(b) of the Act has to be made only to the capital gain determined under Section 48(i)(a) of the Ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Act. For claiming exemption, the assessee has invested only Rs. 15,00,000/-. Therefore, the assessee is entitled for exemption proportionately. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly allowed the exemption proportionately. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. 9. The Revenue has filed one more appeal against the order of the CIT(Appeals) dated 16.06.1994. 10. The only issue arises for consideration is with regard to computation of capital gains. 11. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer computed the exemption under Section 54E of the Act at Rs. 14,55,000/- as against the claim of Rs. 36,68,051/-. On appeal by the....