IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2 1 & 22 /P A N/201 6 (ASST. YEAR : 200 9 - 1 0 ) ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI GOA. VS. 1) SHRI VIJAYNATH RAMA TALAULIKAR, 1249, TALAULIKAR NURSING HOME, SEGUNDO BAIRRO, ST. CRUZ, GOA. PAN NO. ABGPT 9695 R 2) SMT. RITA VIJAYNATH TALAULIKAR, 1249, TALAULIKAR NURSING HOME, SEGUNDO BAIRRO, ST. CRUZ, GOA. PAN NO. ABGPT 9694 Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUBODH B. JOSHI C A. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI K. MEHBOOB ALI KHAN - D R DATE OF HEARING : 26 / 0 4 /201 6 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 / 0 4 /201 6 . O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE ARE THE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 , PANAJI PASSED IN ITA NOS. 359 & 358/CIT(A)/ PNJ - 1/14 - 15 , DATED 24/11/2015 , IN THE CASE OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES, WHO ARE HUSBAND AND WIFE . 2. SHRI K. MEHBOO B ALI KHAN, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REV E NUE AND SHRI SUBODH B. JOSHI, CA REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 2 ITA NO. 21 & 22 /P A N/201 6 3 . IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE REVENUES APPEAL S , WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF SEC. 54EC . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDER UNDER SEC. 263 , WHICH HAD RESULTED IN THE ASSESSMENT BEING PASSED UNDER SEC. 143(3) READ WITH SEC. 263 HAS BEEN QUASHED BY THE ITAT IN ITA NO. 89/PNJ/2014 , VIDE AN ORDER DATED 11/12/2014 . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT . 4 . IN REPLY , AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AT THE OUTSET , THE ORDER UNDER SEC. 263 REMAINS QUASHED AND EVEN ON MERITS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 54EC INSOFAR AS THE FIRST INVESTMENT OF 50 LAC WAS MADE ON 28/02/2009 AND THE SECOND INVESTMENT OF 50 LAC WAS MADE ON 04/04/2009 FALLING WITHIN TWO AS SESSMENT YEARS AND THE INVESTMENT HAD BEEN MADE WITHIN THE SPECIFIED 06 MONTHS PERIOD. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUE ON MERITS WAS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C. JAICHANDER IN T.C.(A).NOS. 419 & 533/2014 DATED 15/09/2014 . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AT THE OUTSET , AS ON DATE , THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 263 REMAIN AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC. 143(3) READ WITH SEC. 263 , DATED 12/01/2015 NO MORE SURVIVE S . IN THIS REGARD, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) IS ON RIGHT FOOTING AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. EVEN ON MERITS, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY 3 ITA NO. 21 & 22 /P A N/201 6 THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.JAICHANDER (SUPRA) . CONSEQUENTLY, ON THIS GROUND ALSO, THE ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON TUESDAY , THE 26 TH DAY OF APRIL , 201 6 AT GOA . S D / - S D / - (N.S.SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 26 TH APRIL, 201 6 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. 2 . THE REVENUE. 3 . THE CIT 4 . THE CIT(A) 5 . THE D.R . 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PANAJI .