2013 (6) TMI 835

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e order dated 13/12/2010 u/s 143(3) passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 2) The CIT is not entitled to direct the AO to re-frame the assessment to restrict the exemption u/s 54EC to Rs. 50,00,000/- instead of Rs. 90,00,000/-. 3) While the first appeal from the order u/s 143(3) is pending before the Learned CIT(Appeals), Panaji who has powers and discretion, in appropriate cases to enhance the assessment if found necessary, there is no occasion for the Learned CIT, Panaji to revise the order u/s 143(3) as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 4) The appellant craves to leave to add to, delete from or to modify the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the legislature itself. The words of the statute, as discussed above, clearly suggest the interpretation adopted above. b) On a plain reading of the proviso it is submitted that the ceiling of Rs. 50 lac laid down in the proviso is a ceiling on the amount of investment and not on the total amount of exemption, and further the said ceiling on the amount of investments also qua the aggregate in a financial year and not qua the aggregate per assessee in different years as such." 2.1 The ld. AR submitted that the order under proposed revision is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The AO has granted deduction u/s 54EC in respect of both amounts invested in two different financial years ending on 31.3.2....