LP.LP.AN.Annamalai, Kottaiyur V. ITO, Karaikudi

ITA 1490/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7997 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BALASUBRAMANIAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Competent authority

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! . '#'$ , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1490/MDS/2011 $ '$ /ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI. LP.LP.AN.ANNAMALAI, 41, 42. VENKATACHALAM CHETTIAR STREET, KOTTAIYUR 630 106. PAN : AABHL 4943 G V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I (1), KARAIKUDI. ( () /APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) () , - /APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE *+(),- /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI BALASUBRAMANIAN, CIT . ,/% /DATE OF HEARING : 05.10.2016 01' ,/% /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.11.2016 /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), MADURAI DATED 06.06.2011 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2 I.T.A. NO.1490/MDS/2011 2. SHRI S.SRIDHAR, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSES SEE SOLD CERTAIN LANDS AT PORUR FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.5,62,61,50 0/- AND THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS DETERMINED AT RS.5,01,42,514/-. TH E ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS.50,00,000/- IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION C ORPORATION LTD. BONDS AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT. THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT. THE CIT( A) BY REFERRING TO A NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY CBDT DATED 22.12.2006, ALLOW ED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.50,00,000/-. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE INTENDED TO DEPOSIT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IN THE BOND ISSUED BY RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE RESTRICTIO N PLACED BY THE CBDT IN THE NOTIFICATION DATED 22.12.2006, FIXING THE LI MIT OF RS.50,00,000/-, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DEPOSIT THE SAME IN THE RURA L ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. BONDS. THE ASSESSEE INTENDED TO AP PROACH THE CBDT TO EXTEND THE MONETARY LIMIT. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED C OUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE PERMITTED TO APPROACH THE CBDT FOR EXTENDING THE MONETARY LIMIT TO DEPOSIT IN THE BOND ISSUED BY RUR AL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI BALASUBRAMANIAN, THE LEARN ED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED THAT TH E CBDT BY NOTIFICATION DATED 22.12.2006 FIXED THE MAXIMUM LIM IT OF RS.50,00,000/- 3 I.T.A. NO.1490/MDS/2011 PER PERSON PER ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTI ON UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE COMMISSIONER BY REF ERRING TO THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY CBDT ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.50,00,000/-. HENCE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APP EAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CIT(A) ADMITTEDLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.50,00,000/- WHICH WAS SAID TO BE INVESTED IN THE BONDS ISSUED BY RURA L ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. TO THAT EXTENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS N O GRIEVANCE AT ALL. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO BE THAT I N VIEW OF THE RESTRICTION PLACED BY CBDT IN THE CIRCULAR DATED 22 .12.2006, HE COULD NOT INVEST MORE THAN RS.50,00,000/-. THIS TRIBUNAL IS O F THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LIMIT UNDER SECT ION 54EC PURSUANT TO THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY CBDT IS ONLY RS.50,00,000 /-. THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A). IF THE ASSESSEE HAS ANY GRIEVANCE WITH REGARD TO MAXIMUM LIMIT FIXED BY CBDT IN THE CIRCUL AR DATED 22.12.2006, IT IS ALWAYS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO APPROACH THE C OMPETENT AUTHORITY INCLUDING THE CBDT. THERE CANNOT BE ANY RESTRICTION FOR REQUESTING THE CBDT TO EXTEND THE MAXIMUM LIMIT FOR INVESTING IN T HE RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE O F CLAIMING EXEMPTION / 4 I.T.A. NO.1490/MDS/2011 DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT. AS ON TODA Y, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO DEPOSIT ONLY RS.50,00,000/- TO THE EXTE NT OF RS.50,00,000/- WHICH WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BONDS IS SUED BY THE RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD., THE CIT(A) HAS AL LOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. 5. HOWEVER, IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO APPROACH THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY INCLUDING THE CBDT FOR EXTENDING THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT. 6. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 25 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! . '#'$ ) ( . . . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 2 /DATED, THE NOVEMBER, 2016. SP. 5 I.T.A. NO.1490/MDS/2011 , */34 54'/ /COPY TO: 1. () /APPELLANT 2. *+() /RESPONDENT 3. . 6/ ( )/CIT(A) 4. . 6/ /CIT, 5. 47 */ /DR 6. 8$ 9 /GF.