TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 773
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s. 143(3)/147 on 16.03.2016 wherein all the issues have been dully considered, therefore, the whole proceeding is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 4. For that on the facts of the case the order passed by the Ld. Pr. C.I.T.-8, Kolkata u/s. 263 is wrong as he has asked the A.O. to do re-examination and re-verification, therefore, the whole order should be quashed. 5. For that on the facts of the case the Ld. CIT-8, Kolkata was wrong in passing the Order u/ s. 263 by setting aside the order u/s. 143(3)/147 for re-examining the extent of excess exemption of Rs. 25,80,000/ - u/s. 54EC of the I.T. Act, when all the details were filed before the A.O. and duly considered by the A.O. at the time of assessment u/s. 143(3) / 147, therefore, the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 6. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. Pr. C.I.T.-8, Kolkata was wrong in giving the direction for re-examine and re-verification the claiming exemption at Rs. 25,80,000 / - and not considering the facts that the assets of 7 co-owner were sold on 15.02.2011 in a single sale deed and entire capital gain also invested in a single ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the I.T. Act should not be invoked in his case and why the assessment completed by the Assessing Officer should not be revised/modified or set-aside. 4. In response to the notice of Ld. PCIT, none attended. However, a written submission had been filed by assessee in the office of ld PCIT, which is reproduced below: "That, as per S. L NO - 7 of the Notice u/s 263 it was presumed that exemption u/s 54EC was allowed twice [3,90,000/- + 18,00,000/-] but the contention is not correct. The entire assets of 7 co owner was sold on 15/02/2011 in a single sale deed and entire capital gain also invested in a single bond No - 219 (1000 X 219, i.e 21,90,000/-). The assets were reflected in A.O's assessment order further sale deed 47.38%. So, there was no default of the assessee as per notice of S.L No - 7 [Xerox copy of the sale deed and Xerox copy of Bond are annexed ] The during the course of hearing in response to A.O 's quarry [which has pointed out by your honour in S.L NO 6] it was explained to A.O " whenever the term "MONTH" a calendar month is mentioned it is normally taken as period commencing in a calendar month ending on a date prior to a corresponding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ple of natural justice." 6. However, the ld. Pr. CIT rejected the contention of the assessee and held as follows:- "6. I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned assessment order u/s. 143(3) dt. 16.03.2016 has been passed without examining the veracity of asessee's claim of exemption u/s 54EC of Rs. 21,90,000/-. It is not in dispute that assessee had deposited the capital gain amount arising from sale of two properties in Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd, Bond as per the scheme of the Government. The investment in the REC Bond was made on 30.08.2011 as against the threshold limit of 14.8.2011, for the simple reason that the sale deed was entered on 15.2.2011. It is the contention of assessee that the investment is to be made within the completion of six months and not any faction date i.e 180 days. On a plain reading of the provision, it is clear that the investment is required to be undertaken any time within a period of six months after the date of such transfer and redeemable after three years. (emphasis assigned). In other words, the period of six months has to be reckoned from the date of the transfer i.e the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, we note that Hon`ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Munnalal Shrikishan Mainpuri (167 ITR 415) has defined the term "Month" as calendar month. The findings of the court is as follows: "Before we deal with the questions raised at the instance of the Revenue, we may dispose of a preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the assessee. Sri B. N. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that in view of the fact that notice of refusal by the Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the IT Act was served on the CIT on June 25, 1986, the application filed by it on January 1, 1987, was barred by limitation by six days. It was urged that the period prescribed under s. 256(2) is six months which ought to be taken as 180 days. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Laxmi Rattan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. (1974) 97 ITR 285, in support of his contention that the limitation should be calculated treating each of the six months as meaning 30 days. We are unable to agree with this contention. The decision cited by learned counsel for the assessee was in the context of s. 271(1)(a) which deals with an entirely different subje....