BELLAIRE HOUSEWARE MANUFACTURERS, MUMBAI V. ITO -14(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 376/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 37619914 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: YOGESH KAMAT SR
• Assessee Lawyers: N C SHAH
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - B, BENCH , , BEFORE S/SH. JOGINDER S INGH ,JUDICIAL MEMBER & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO. 376 /MUM/20 1 4 , / ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2010 - 11 BELLA I RE HOUSEWARE MANUFACTURERS 605, GORAKHPURAWALA BUILDING OPP. WADIA FIRE TEMPLE GIRGAUM ROAD MUMBAI - 400 002. PAN: AAJFB 5271 H VS INCOME TAX OFFICER - 14(I)(4) EARNEST HOUSE, 2ND FLOOR MUMBAI - 400 021. ( / A PPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY :SHRI N.C. SHAH / REVENUE BY :SHRI YOGESH KAMAT - SR.AR / DATE OF HEARING : 22 - 0 6 - 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 - 0 6 - 2015 , 1961 254 ( 1 ) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDER D ATED 29. 11. 201 3 OF CIT(A) - 25, MUMBAI , THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED F OLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THAT THE DEDUCTION OF RS.48,80,000/ IS NOT ALLOWABLE WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN REC BONDS ON 15TH APRIL, 2010 WHICH WAS WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY BY STATING THAT THE LIMIT OF INVESTMENT OF RS.50,00,000/ WAS APPLICABLE TO A TRANSACTION WITHIN A FINANCIAL YEAR BY IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF YOUR APP ELLANT THAT THE LIMIT SET WAS APPLICABLE TO PER FINANCIAL YEAR OF INVESTMENT AND NOT PER TRANSACTION. 2) THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN INCORRECTLY INTERPRETING THE PROVISO IN SEC 54EC OF THE ACT WHICH AS EVIDENT IN THE SECTION IS APPLICABLE TO INVESTMENT PER FINANCIAL YEAR, AS THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO INVESTMENT IN RELATION TO ANY TRANSACTION. 3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF TWO BENCHES OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BY STATING THAT THERE IS NO DIRECT DECISION OF THE HON. BOMBAY HIGH COURT OR EVEN ANY BENCH OF HON. ITAT, MUMBAI. 4) THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT GRANTING ANY RELIEF CLAIMED BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN A GOVERNMENT ORGANISAT ION AT A LOWER RATE OF INTEREST, ONLY WITH A VIEW TO SEEK RELIEF AS PRESCRIBED IN THE ACT AND BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO PROHIBITION ON THE REC AUTHORITIES TO ACCEPT SUCH INVESTMENT AS UNDER THE RULES FRAMED REC IS ENTITLED TO ACCEPT INVESTM ENTS SUBJECT TO LIMIT OF RS.50,00,000/ PER FINANCIAL YEAR AND THIS INDICATED THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER 54EC WAS NOT RESTRICTED TO DEDUCTION GRANTABLE PER FINANCIAL YEAR. 5) YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, AMEND, ALTER OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUN D AS MAY BE ADVISED. 376/MUM/14 - BELLAIRE - AY:10 - 11 2 ASSESSEE - FIRM FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 2 9.7.10 DECLARING I NCOME OF RS. 1,68,838 LACS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ( AO ) COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 11.12.12 , U / S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE AT RS. 50,48,840/ - . 2. THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT.DU RING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD DERIVED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ( LTCG ) AMOUNTING TO RS.1.00 CR ORES ON SALE OF OFFICE PREMI SES ON 11.11.2009, THAT THE LTCG SO DERIVED HAD BEEN CLAIMED AS EXEMPT, U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED RS.50 .00 LACS ON 8.12. 20 09 IN THE BONDS ISSUED BY RURAL E LECTRIFICATION C ORPORATION LTD. ( RECL), THAT ON 15.4. 20 10 IT AGAIN I N VESTED RS.5 0 .00 LACS IN THE BONDS ISSUED BY RECL , THAT IT CLAIMED EXEMPTION FOR RS.1.00 CR ORE UNDER THE SAID SECTION. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT DID NOT ALLOW ASSESSEE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S. 54EC FOR MORE THAN RS.50.00 LACS , THAT IN ADD ITION TO IT , THE INVESTMENT HAD TO BE MADE WITHIN SIX MONTHS. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY (FAA) , WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO. 3. BEFORE US, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ( AR ) ST ATED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDERS OF ASPI GINWALA AND ORS. (52 SOT 16), SMT. SRIRAM INDUBAI (ITA/1950/M DS./12 AY - 2008 - 09 DT.31.1.13), LEELAVATI SAYANI (49 TAXMANN.COM 579) AND KETAN C HEMICALS ( ITA NO. 6636/ M UM/2013 AY - 09 - 10 DT.8.4.2015).H E ALS O RELIED UPON THE CASE OF C. J AICHANDER (370 ITR 579) OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( DR ) SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE US .WE FIND THAT THE I SSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF 54EC DEDUCTION FOR THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN REC BONDS HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY ABOVE MENTIONED DECISIONS. RESPECTFULL Y FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS, SPECIALLY THE JUDGMENT OF C.JAICHANDER(SUPRA) OF HONBLE M ADR AS HIGH CO URT, WE DECIDE THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED . . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND JUNE ,2015. 22 ND , 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( / JOGINDER S INGH ) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, /DATE: 22 .0 6 .2015 . . . JV . SR.PS . / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 376/MUM/14 - BELLAIRE - AY:10 - 11 3 5. DR BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , / ITAT, MUMBAI.