JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by R. Sudhakar J.-The Revenue is appellant in these appeals. While T. C. (A.) No. 419 of 2014 is filed challenging order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal "B" Bench, Chennai, dated November 1, 2013, made in I. T. A. No. 456/Mds/2013 for assessment year 2009-10, T. C. (A.) No. 533 of 2014 is filed challenging order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal "D" Bench, Chennai, dated January 31, 2013, made in I. T. A. No. 1950/Mds/2012 for assessment year 2008-09. These appeals were admitted on following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that assessee is eligible for deduction of Rs. 1 crore under section 54EC, in respect of investment of Rs. 50 lakhs made in two different financial years? (ii) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in not referring matter to Special Bench under section 255(4), when there are conflicting views by different Benches?" 3.1. For better clarity, we state facts of case in T. C. (A.) No. 533 of 2014. assessee filed return of income on September 27, 2009, and same was processed under section 143(1) of Act. case of assessee was selected for scrutiny and notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, "the Act"), were issued on September 29, 2010, and October 14, 2010, respectively. In terms of said notice, assessee furnished details to Department. 3.2. It is stated that assessee sold property at Palavakkam for sale consideration of Rs. 3,46,50,000, vide agreement of sale dated February 18, 2008, entered into with Ceebros Property Developments. appellant invested Rs. 1,00,00,000 out of sale proceeds in certain bonds in two financial years, namely, Rs. 50,00,000 in Rural Electrification Corporation Bonds in financial year 2007-08 and Rs. 50,00,000 in National Highways HAI Bond in financial year 2008-09. 3.3. Assessing Officer held that assessee can take benefit of investment in specified bonds to maximum of Rs. 50,00,000 only under section 54EC(1) of Act and, accordingly, held that other sum Rs. 50,00,000 invested over and above ceiling prescribed does not qualify for exemption in terms of Act. 3.4. appeal preferred by assessee did not find favour with Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who confirmed order of Assessing Officer in this regard. Calling into question said order, assessee preferred appeal to Tribunal. Tribunal held that exemption granted under proviso to section 54EC(1) of Act should be construed not transaction-wise, but financial year-wise. It further held that if assessee is able to invest sum of Rs. 50,00,000 each in two different financial years, within period of six months from date of transfer of capital asset, it cannot be said to be inadmissible. relevant portion of said order reads as under: "8. first condition mentioned in section 54EC(1) is that investment has to be made within period of six months from date of transfer of capital asset. Since date of transfer in given is February 18, 2008, six months period will elapse on August 17, 2008. assessee had purchased REC Bonds worth of Rs. 50 lakhs on February 27, 2008, and Bonds of NHAI for Rs. 50 lakhs on June 30, 2008. Both these purchases were within six months' period. Only question that arises is whether proviso to section 54EC(1) would limit claim of exemption to Rs. 50 lakhs. said proviso mentions that investment on which assessee could claim exemption under section 54EC(1) shall not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs during financial year. So, exemption provision has to be construed not transaction-wise but financial year-wise. No doubt, Explanatory Memorandum does say that limitation has been placed with view to ensure equitable distribution of benefits among prospective investors. relevant Explanatory Memorandum is reproduced for brevity : 'The quantum of investible bonds issued by NHAI and REC being limited, it was felt necessary to ensure that benefit was available to all investors. For this purpose, it was necessary to ensure that limited number of bonds available for subscription is also available for small investors. Therefore, with view to ensure equitable distribution of benefits amongst prospective investors, government decided to impose ceiling on quantum of investment that could be made in such bonds. Accordingly, said section has been amended so as to provide for ceiling on investment by assessee in such long-term specified assets. Investments in such specified assets to avail of exemption under section 54EC, on or after 1st day of April, 2007, will not exceed fifty lakh rupees in financial year.' Last sentence of Explanatory Memorandum clearly states that exemption for investment cannot exceed Rs. 50 lakhs in financial year. Therefore, if assessee is able to keep six months' limit from date of transfer of capital asset, but, still able to place investment of Rs. 50 lakhs each in two different financial years, we cannot say that restrictive proviso will limit claim to Rs. 50 lakhs only. Since assessee here had placed Rs. 50 lakhs in two different financial years but within six months period from date of transfer of capital asset, assessee was definitely eligible to claim exemption up to Rs. 1 crore. same view has been taken by Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in case of Aspi Ginwala, Shree Ram Engg. and Mfg. Industries v. Asst. CIT [2012] 52 SOT 16 (Ahd.). We are, therefore, of opinion that assessee has to succeed in this appeal. Claim of assessee for exemption up to Rs. 1 crore has to be allowed in accordance with section 54EC of Act." 3.5. Assailing said order dated January 31, 2013, made in I. T. A. No. 1950/Mds/2012 passed by Tribunal, Department filed T. C. (A.) No. 533 of 2014 raising substantial questions of law, referred to supra. 3.6. Subsequently, another co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal, by placing reliance on abovesaid order dated January 31, 2013, made in case of Sriram Indubal I. T. A. No. 1950/Mds/2012), allowed appeal filed by assessee (C. Jaichander) in I. T. A. No. 456/Mds/2013, by order dated November 1, 2013. Aggrieved by said order, Department filed T. C. (A.) No. 419 of 2014 raising substantial questions of law, referred supra. We have heard Mr. J. Narayanasamy, learned senior standing counsel appearing for Revenue; Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent in T. C. (A.) No. 419 of 2014 and Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for respondent in T. C. (A.) No. 533 of 2014. key issue that arises for consideration is whether first proviso to section 54EC(1) of Act would restrict benefit of investment of capital gains in bonds to that financial year during which property was sold or it applies to any financial year during six months period. For better understanding of issue, it would be apposite to refer to section 54EC(1) of Act, which reads as under: "54EC. Capital gain not to be charged on investment in certain bonds.-(1) Where capital gain arises from transfer of longterm capital asset (the capital asset so transferred being hereafter in this section referred to as original asset) and assessee has, at any time within period of six months after date of such transfer, invested whole or any part of capital gains in long-term specified asset, capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with following provisions of this section, that is to say,- (a) if cost of long-term specified asset is not less than capital gain arising from transfer of original asset, whole of such capital gain shall not be charged under section 45; (b) if cost of long-term specified asset is less than capital gain arising from transfer of original asset, so much of capital gain as bears to whole of capital gain same proportion as cost of acquisition of long-term specified asset bears to whole of capital gain, shall not be charged under section 45: Provided that investment made on or after 1st day of April, 2007 in long-term specified asset by assessee during any financial year does not exceed fifty lakh rupees." On plain reading of above said provision, we are of view that section 54EC(1) of Act restricts time limit for period of investment after property has been sold to six months. There is no cap on investment to be made in bonds. first proviso to section 54EC(1) of Act specifies quantum of investment and it states that investment so made on or after April 1, 2007, in long-term specified asset by assessee during any financial year does not exceed fifty lakhs rupees. In other words, as per mandate of section 54EC(1) of Act, time limit for investment is six months and benefit that flows from first proviso is that if assessee makes investment of Rs. 50,00,000 in any financial year, it would have benefit of section 54EC(1) of Act. Legislature noticing ambiguity in abovesaid provision, by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, with effect from April 1, 2015, inserted after existing proviso to sub-section (1) of section 54EC of Act, second proviso, which reads as under: "Provided further that investment made by assessee in long- term specified asset, from capital gains arising from transfer of one or more original assets, during financial year in which original asset or assets are transferred and in subsequent financial year does not exceed fifty lakh rupees." At this juncture, for better clarity, it would be appropriate to refer to Notes on Clauses Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2014, and Memorandum explaining provisions in Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2014, which read as under (see [2014] 365 ITR (St.) 103, 120): "Notes on Clauses-Finance (No. 2) Bill 2014: Clause 23 of Bill seeks to amend section 54EC of Incometax Act relating to capital gain not to be charged on investment in certain bonds. existing provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 54EC provide that where capital gain arises from transfer of long-term capital asset and assessee has within period of six months invested whole or part of capital gains in long-term specified asset, proportionate capital gains so invested in long-term specified asset out of total capital gains shall not be charged to tax. proviso to said sub-section provides that investment made in long-term specified asset during any financial year shall not exceed fifty lakhs rupees. It is proposed to insert proviso below first proviso in said sub-section (1) so as to provide that investment made by assessee in long-term specified asset, from capital gains arising from transfer of one or more original assets, during financial year in which original asset or assets are transferred and in subsequent financial year does not exceed fifty lakhs rupees. This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2015, and will, accordingly, apply in relation to assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent years. Memorandum explaining provisions in Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2014 (see [2014] 365 ITR (St.) 149, 184): Capital gains exemption on investment in specified bonds. existing provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 54EC of Act provide that where capital gain arises from transfer of long-term capital asset and assessee has, within period of six months, invested whole or part of capital gains in longterm specified asset, proportionate capital gains so invested in long-term specified asset, out of whole of capital gain, shall not be charged to tax. proviso to said sub-section provides that investment made in long-term specified asset during any financial year shall not exceed fifty lakh rupees. However, wordings of proviso have created ambiguity. As result capital gains arising during year after month of September were invested in specified asset in such manner so as to split investment in two years, i.e., one within year and second in next year but before expiry of six months. This resulted in claim for relief of one crore rupees as against intended limit for relief of fifty lakhs rupees. Accordingly, it is proposed to insert proviso in sub-section (1) so as to provide that investment made by assessee in longterm specified asset, out of capital gains arising from transfer of one or more original asset, during financial year in which original asset or assets are transferred and in subsequent financial year does not exceed fifty lakhs rupees. This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2015 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent assessment years." Legislature has chosen to remove ambiguity in proviso to section 54EC(1) of Act by inserting second proviso with effect from April 1, 2015. Memorandum Explaining Provisions in Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2014, also states that same will be applicable from April 1, 2015, in relation to assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent years. intention of Legislature probably appears to be that this amendment should be for assessment year 2015-16 to avoid unwanted litigations of previous years. Even otherwise, we do not wish to read anything more into first proviso to section 54EC(1) of Act, as it stood in relation to assessees. In any event, from reading of section 54EC(1) and first proviso, it is clear that time limit for investment is six months from date of transfer and even if such investment falls under two financial years, benefit claimed by assessee cannot be denied. It would have made difference, if restriction on investment in bonds to Rs. 50,00,000 is incorporated in section 54EC(1) of Act itself. However, ambiguity has been removed by Legislature with effect from April 1, 2015 in relation to assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent years. For foregoing reasons, we find no infirmity in orders passed by Tribunal warranting interference by this court. substantial questions of law are answered against Revenue and these appeals are dismissed. No costs. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. C. Jaichander / Sriram Indubal