The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 (1), Panaji., Panaji V. Smt. Varsha Usgaonkar Sharma., Goa

ITA 32/PAN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2101 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMESH S MUTAGAR
• Assessee Lawyers: CHINMAY S KAMAT

Judgement Text

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. 32 /P A N/201 6 (ASST. YEAR : 20 1 0 - 1 1 ) THE ACIT,CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI GOA. VS. SMT. VARSHA USGAONKAR SHARMA, D - 4, LANDSCAPE MARTINS MANSION, NEW MIRAMAR, DONA PAULA ROAD, CARANZALEM GOA. PAN NO. AAHPU 2633 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI CHINMAY S. KAMAT C A. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI RAMESH S. MUTAGAR - DR DATE OF HEARING : 0 4 / 0 5 /201 6 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 / 0 5 /201 6 . O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , HUBLI IN APPEAL NO. 110/PNJ/2012 - 13 , DATED 2 0 / 11 /201 5 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 . 2. SHRI RAMESH S. MUTAGAR , DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI CHINMAY S. KAMAT , CA REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 . IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE REVENUES APPEAL WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SEC. 54EC I N RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL 2 ITA NO. 3 2/P A N/201 6 INVESTMENT MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDING 50 LAC. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF HOUSE AT ALTHINO, GOA . THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED 1 CRORE , IN REC BONDS OF 50 LAC ON 31/03/2010 AND ANOTHER AMOUNT OF 50 LAC IN N HAI BONDS ON 30/04/2010 . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE CEILING LIMIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 54EC WAS 50 LAC AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED THE CLAIM UNDER SEC. 54EC IN RESPECT OF THE BALANCE OF 50 LAC. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD DELETED THE ADDITION BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. MS. RANIA FALEIRO (2013) 33 TAXMANN.COM 611 ( PANAJI TRIBUNAL) AS ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. COROMANDEL INDUSTRIES LTD. (2015) 56 TAXMANN. COM 209 (MADRAS) . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE DECISION OF THE COORDIN A TE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MS. RANIA FALEIRO (SUPRA) WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED. 4 . IN REPLY , AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED BEFORE US THE CIRCULAR N O .01/2015 IN F.NO. 142/13/2014 - TPL, DATED 21/01/2015 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED THAT THERE IS AN AMBIGUITY IN THE PROVISO TO SEC. 54EC (1) AND W.E.F. 01/04/2015 AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS , THE RELIEF WAS LIABLE TO BE GIVEN TO THE EXTENT OF 50 LAC EVEN IF THE INVESTMENTS ARE MADE IN TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS, BUT WITHIN 06 MONTHS . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE CIRCULAR CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE RESTRICTION OF 50 LAC WAS ONLY FROM 01/04/2015 . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT T HE 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. 3 ITA NO. 3 2/P A N/201 6 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS . AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C. JAICHANDER (SUPRA) AS ALSO THE DECISION OF THE C OORDINATE B ENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RANIA FALEIRO (SUPRA) AND AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISIONS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHICH CALLS FOR ANY INTERFERENCE . CONSEQUENTLY, THE ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON WEDNESDAY , THE 0 4 TH DAY OF MAY , 201 6 AT GOA . S D / - S D / - (N.S.SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 0 4 TH MAY , 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