ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. KAMLAKAR MOGHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing Shri Parchure, learned counsel for the appellant -Revenue and Shri Bhattad, learned counsel for the respondent -assessee, it was felt that no substantial questions of law arise for determination in this appeal. In view of this, we have heard the respective counsel at length and disposed of the appeal by this judgment. The following two questions of law are sought to be raised by the Revenue in this appeal under Sec. 260A of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing deduction of Rs. 22 lakhs claimed under Sec. 54EC for investment in purchase of REC Bonds -

(3.) Shri Parchure, learned counsel submitted that the payment made to the sisters was not necessary and it cannot be treated as cost for acquiring the title to the property. It is not an expenditure which can be connected with the transfer of property. He has taken us through the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer as also by the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) and by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal for the said purpose. In so far as the claim under Sec. 54EC of the Act is concerned, he submits that the amount has not been invested within the prescribed period of six months and as such the purchase of REC Bonds could not have been looked into and Sec. 54EC of the Act was not applicable in the present facts.