Smt. Kiran Kamra, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4904/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0763 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 15-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: V RAJ KUMAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 54; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4904/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 KIRAN KAMRA, 2286, HUDSON LINE, G.T.B. NAGAR, DELHI. PAN: AAQPK8729C VS. ITO, WARD-36(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE & SHRI V. RAJ KUMAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI S.L. ANURAGI, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 18.02.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.03.2019 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29 TH JULY, 2016 OF THE CIT(A)-12, NEW DELHI, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YE AR 2011-12. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN N OT ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 BEING THE AMOUNT OF INV ESTMENT MADE IN THE PURCHASE OF REC BONDS. THE ABOVE ACTION BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS, MISCON CEIVED AND UNJUST MUST BE QUASHED WITH DIRECTIONS FOR RELIEF. ITA NO.4904/DEL/2016 2 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVES INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAI N. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 6 TH JANUARY, 2012 DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.7,1 60/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS.49,63,932/- U/S 54EC OF THE IT ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED FROM THE DETAILS FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD PROPERTY BEARING NO.115/5, OLD RAJPUR, DEH RADUN FOR RS.58.40 LAKHS TO SARDAR HARCHARAN SINGH VIDE SALE DEED DULY EXECUTED ON 17.03.2011. THE AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION WAS TRANSFERRED TO CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME 1988. AFTER THAT THE ASSESSEE WITHDREW THE AMOUNT FROM HEAR CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT TO PURCHASE REC BONDS ON 19 TH MARCH, 2012. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED VIDE LET TER DATED 4 TH DECEMBER, 2015 THAT SHE WANTED TO BUY A HOUSE PROPERTY FROM THE AM OUNT OF SALE PROCEEDS AND, HENCE, OPENED THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH SYNDICATE BANK UNDER C APITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME 1988 AND TRANSFERRED THE FULL CONSIDERATION OF RS.5 8,40,000/- TO THIS ACCOUNT BETWEEN 23 RD TO 25 TH APRIL, 2011. THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED U/S 13 9 ON 6 TH JANUARY, 2012 BY CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. NEITHER SHE NOR HER HUSBAND OR CHILDREN OWNED ANY HOUSE IN DELHI AND FOR HER BONA FIDE NEEDS SHE TRIED HARD TO BUY A HOUSE PROPERTY IN DELHI. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN ABSENCE OF ANY PROPERTY PURCHASED, THE AMOUNT WAS INVESTED IN SECTION 54EC BONDS INSTEAD OF INVESTING IN PROPERTY BY WITHDRAWING THE AMOUNT FROM CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY CLEAR THAT HER INTENTION WAS ALWAYS TO INV EST IN ELIGIBLE SCHEME IN ORDER TO SAVE TAX ON LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE ASSESSEE AC CORDINGLY INVESTED IN REC BONDS TO CLAIM TAX EXEMPTION AS PER THE INTENTION OF THE LEG ISLATURE. ITA NO.4904/DEL/2016 3 4. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE CERTI FICATE ISSUED BY REC LTD., THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOTTED BONDS ON 31.03.2012. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54EC, THE EXEMPTION UNDER THIS SECTION CAN BE CLAIMED IF INVE STMENT IN SUCH BONDS IS MADE WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF ASSE T. IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISION OF THE ACT AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE PROPER TY WAS TRANSFERRED ON 17 TH MARCH, 2011 WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR REC BONDS ONL Y ON 19 TH MARCH, 2012 WHICH WERE ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 31 ST MARCH, 2012, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT. HE ACCORDI NGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.49,63,932/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEFORE CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH MRS. PUJA SETHI AND MRS. SACHIN SETHI FOR PURC HASE OF A PLOT NO.24, BLOCK-UP, PITAMPURA, DELHI MEASURING 150 SQ. YARDS VIDE RECEI PT CUM AGREEMENT DATED 24.05.2011 FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.60 LAKHS OUT OF WHICH SHE HAD PAID RS.20 LAKHS AS EXEMPT MONEY VIDE CHEQUE NO.833521 DATED 2 4.05.2011 DRAWN FROM HER ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH SYNDICATE BANK. VIDE CHEQU E NO.833523 AN AMOUNT OF RS.15 LAKHS AND VIDE CHEQUE NO.833522 DATED 23 RD MAY, 2011 ANOTHER RS.20 LAKHS WERE PAID. HOWEVER, SINCE THE DEAL DID NOT WORK OU T, SHE ISSUED TWO LEGAL NOTICES AGAINST THE SELLERS, NAMELY, MRS. PUJA SETHI AND MR . SACHIN SETHI. SHE RECEIVED BACK THE AMOUNT OF RS.55 LAKHS ON 21 ST FEBRUARY, 2012 AND, THEREAFTER, SHE INVESTED THE AMOUNT IN REC BONDS ON 21.03.2012. IT WAS ACCORDIN GLY ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.4904/DEL/2016 4 INITIALLY PAID THE MONEY FOR PURCHASE OF HOUSE AND SINCE THE DEAL DID NOT MATERIALIZE, THE MONEY WAS OBTAINED AFTER ISSUE OF LEGAL NOTICES AND, THEREAFTER, THE MONEY WAS INVESTED IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME. THEREFORE , THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT. 6. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT SATISFIED WI TH THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE NOTICED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 AND 54EC AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IN ORDER TO AVAIL THE EXEMPTION U/S 54EC, THE CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNT HAS TO BE INVESTED IN A LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET WITHI N A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTAN T CASE HAS INVESTED THE AMOUNT OF RS.50 LAKHS ON 21 ST MARCH, 2012 WHEREAS THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD ON 17 TH MARCH, 2011, THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 54EC IS AFTER THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS I.E., AFTER ONE YEAR AND F OUR DAYS WHICH IS BEYOND TIME AND, THEREFORE, SHE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE EXEMPTI ON U/S 54EC. SO FAR AS THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS INVESTED FOR PU RCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IS CONCERNED, HE REJECTED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT SHE WAS REQUIRED TO INVEST THE AMOUNT IN ANOTHER HOUSE PROPERTY IF THE DEAL DID NO T MATERIALIZE INSTEAD OF INVESTING IN REC BONDS. HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FULF ILLED THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED U/S 54 OF THE ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITIO N OF RS.49,63,932/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXEMP TION U/S 54EC. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO.4904/DEL/2016 5 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME ARGUMENT AS ADVANCED BEFORE THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAD PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.60 LAKHS TO MRS. PUJA SETHI AND MR. SA CHIN SETHI FOR PURCHASE OF A HOUSE PROPERTY AT PLOT NO.24, BLOCK-UP, PITAMPURA, DELHI . SINCE THE DEAL COULD NOT MATERIALIZE, AFTER ISSUE OF TWO LEGAL NOTICES THE A SSESSEE GOT BACK RS.55 LAKHS FROM THE ABOVE TWO SELLERS ON 21 ST FEBRUARY, 2012 AND, THEREAFTER, THE AMOUNT WAS INV ESTED IN REC BONDS ON 21 ST MARCH, 2012. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXEMPTION GRAN TED U/S 54 AND 54EC ARE BENEFICIAL PROVISION AND SHOULD BE INTERPR ETED LIBERALLY. REFERRING TO THE CIRCULAR NO.359 DATED 10 TH MAY, 1983 ISSUED BY CBDT, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CB DT IN THE SAID CIRCULAR HAS HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE INVESTS THE EARNEST MONEY OR THE ADVANCE RECEIVED IN SPECIFIED ASSETS BEFORE THE DAT E OF TRANSFER OF ASSET THE AMOUNT SO INVESTED WILL QUALIFY FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54E OF THE IT ACT, 1961. IN THE SAID CIRCULAR THE TECHNICAL INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 54E WAS CON SIDERED LIBERALLY AND IT WAS FELT THAT THE STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE SAID PROVISION WOU LD GO AGAINST THE PURPOSE AND SPIRIT OF THE SECTION. REFERRING TO THE NOTIFICATION DATED 3 0 TH JUNE, 2006 ISSUED BY CBDT VIDE F.NO.142/09/2006-TPL, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CBDT WI TH A VIEW TO REMOVING THE HARDSHIP CAUSED TO TAXPAYERS, IN EXERCISE OF POWERS CONFERRED BY CLAUSE (C) OF SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 119 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1 961, ORDERED THAT THE LIMITATION OF SIX MONTHS FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 54EC OF CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF A LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSET, IS EXTEN DED - UPTO 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2006 IN CASE OF PERSONS WHERE THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSET W AS TRANSFERRED BETWEEN 29.09.2005 AND 31.12.2005 (BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE); AND UPTO 31 ST DECEMBER, 2006 IN CASE OF ITA NO.4904/DEL/2016 6 PERSONS WHERE THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSET WAS TRANS FERRED BETWEEN 01.01.2006 AND 30.06.2006 (BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE). HE ACCORDINGLY S UBMITTED THAT CBDT IS ALSO TAKING LIBERAL APPROACH FOR GIVING THE BENEFIT U/S 54EC. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS. M/S WOOD PAPERS LTD. & ANR. REPORTED IN AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 2049 , HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT STRICT AS WELL AS LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION ARE REQUIRED TO BE INVOKED AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF INTERPRETING E XEMPTION PROVISIONS. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY-I AND ANR. VS. PARLE EXPORTS (P) LTD. (1990) 183 ITR 624 (SC), HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT THE FAIREST AND MOST RATIONAL METHOD TO INTERPRET THE WILL OF THE LAW-MA KER IS BY EXPLORING HIS INTENTIONS AT THE TIME WHEN THE LAW WAS MADE, BY SIGNS THE MOST N ATURAL AND PROBABLE. AND THESE SIGNS ARE EITHER THE WORDS, THE CONTEXT, THE SUBJEC T-MATTER, THE EFFECTS AND CONSEQUENCES, OR THE SPIRIT AND REASON OF THE LAW. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAMBANDAM UDAYKUMAR REPORTED IN 345 ITR 389 (KAR.) AND THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. J. PALEMAR KRISHNA, REPORTED IN 167 ITR 471, HE SUBMITTED THAT ONCE IT IS DEMONSTRATED THAT CON SIDERATION RECEIVED ON TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET IS INVESTED IN THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, THE FACT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS INVOLVED IN PURCHASE OR CONST RUCTION OF SUCH RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ARE NOT COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECTS WOULD NOT DISENTIT LE THE ASSESSEE FROM BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 54F. REFERRING TO THE DECISION IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. AKBAR ALI DHALA (2014) 49 TAXMANN.COM 202 (MADRAS), HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE ITA NO.4904/DEL/2016 7 SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES RIGHT TO MAKE INVESTMENT WITHIN SIX MONTHS CANNOT BE CURTAILED ONLY FOR REASON OF NON-AVAILABI LITY OF SPECIFIED BONDS IN MARKET FOR A PERIOD AT TIME OF EXPIRY OF STIPULATED SIX MONTHS . HE ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- (I) CIT VS. CELLO PLAST, (2012) 24 TAXMANN.COM 111 (BOM .); (II) DR. (SMT.) SUJATHA RAMESH VS. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRE CT TAXES, NEW DELHI (2017) 87 TAXMANN.COM 228 (KAR); (III) CIT VS. DR. ARVIND S. PHAKE, 401 ITR 96 (BOM); AND (IV) HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. VS. DCIT, (2010) 325 ITR 10 2 (BOM). 8. RELYING ON VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS, HE SUBMITTED THAT VARIOUS COURTS AND TRIBUNALS ARE TAKING A LIBERAL VIEW FOR GRANTING EX EMPTION U/S 54EC WHERE THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES HAVE INVESTED IN THE SPECIFIC BONDS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE AS SESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAD INITIALLY INVESTED THE AMOUNT IN PURCHASE OF A PROP ERTY AND SINCE THE DEAL COULD NOT MATERIALIZE HAD INVESTED THE MONEY SO REFUNDED AFTE R LEGAL NOTICES, TOWARDS PURCHASE OF REC BONDS, THEREFORE, THE EXEMPTION U/S 54EC COU LD NOT BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF MERE TECHNICALITIES. A LIBERAL APPRO ACH SHOULD BE ADOPTED AND THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION. 9. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE AS SESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS NOT FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U/S 54EC AND MA DE THE DEPOSIT AFTER A PERIOD OF ITA NO.4904/DEL/2016 8 MORE THAN ONE YEAR AS AGAINST THE PERIOD OF SIX MON THS PROVIDED IN THE STATUTE, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BEING IN ACCORDA NCE WITH THE LAW IS FULLY JUSTIFIED AND HAS TO BE UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 10. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BE FORE ME. I FIND THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE SOLD A PROPERTY ON 17 TH MARCH 2011 SITUATED AT DELHI FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.58.40 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE KEPT THE MONEY IN THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME 1988 AND TRANSFERRED THE FULL CONSIDERATION OF RS.5 8.40 LACS TO THIS ACCOUNT BETWEEN 23 RD TO 25 TH APRIL 2011. THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY IN THE RETU RN FILED UNDER SECTION 139 ON 6 TH JANUARY 2012 CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 O F THE IT ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF R S.49,63,932/- UNDER SECTION 54EC IN REC BONDS WHICH WERE ALLOTTED TO HER ON 31.03.20 12 AND THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF THE SAME AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 54EC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54EC ON THE GROUND T HAT THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR THE REC BONDS ON 19 TH MARCH 2012 WHICH WERE ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 31 ST MARCH 2012 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INVESTED IN THE REC B ONDS WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 54EC, I.E., WITHIN A PERIOD OF 6 MONT HS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE EXEM PTION UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT. I FIND THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54EC ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE SAID PROVISION. WHILE ITA NO.4904/DEL/2016 9 DOING SO HE HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT THE MONEY WAS EARLIER ADVANCED TO MRS POOJA SETHI AND MR SACHIN S ETHI FOR PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR WHICH AN AMOUNT OF RS.60 LAKHS WAS ADV ANCED AND AFTER DUE LEGAL PROCESS ASSESSEE GOT BACK AN AMOUNT OF RS.55 LAKHS WHICH WA S SUBSEQUENTLY INVESTED IN THE REC BONDS. IN MY OPINION, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS NEITHER PURCHASED THE HOUSE WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD NOR CONSTRUCTED A HOUS E AND NOR INVESTED THE MONEY IN THE ELIGIBLE BONDS AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 54EC OF TH E IT ACT WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD. NO DOUBT, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON A SERIES OF DECISIONS. HOWEVER, A PERUSAL OF THE DECISIONS CITED BY HIM SH OWS THAT THEY ARE DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE . IN SOME OF THE DECISIONS THE TIME PERIOD FOR INVESTMENT IN 54EC BONDS WERE EXTENDED S INCE THE BONDS WERE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE MARKET DURING THE TIME WHEN THE AS SESSEE WAS SUPPOSED TO INVEST IN THE SPECIFIED BONDS. SIMILARLY, IN CERTAIN CASES TH E ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED THE MONEY PRIOR TO THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY OUT OF THE AD VANCES RECEIVED AND THEREFORE IT WAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE EXEMPTI ON. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INVESTED THE AMOUNT IN THE SPECIFIED BONDS WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD PRESCRIBED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54EC. I T IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BONDS WERE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE MARKET AT THE S TIPULATED TIME. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED CERTAIN LEGAL NOTICES AS AVAILAB LE IN THE PAPER BOOK THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL OF THE SAID PROPERTY IS NOT FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT BENEFICIAL PR OVISIONS SHOULD BE INTERPRETED ITA NO.4904/DEL/2016 10 LIBERALLY IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CAS E SINCE IN MY OPINION SUCH INTERPRETATIONS CANNOT BE STRETCHED TO AN EXTENT SO AS TO MAKE THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT REDUNDANT. IN ANY CASE, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54EC BY NOT DEPOSITING TH E AMOUNT IN THE SPECIFIED BONDS, THEREFORE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT. THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A) IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 6.03.2019. SD/- ( R.K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMFBE R DATED: 26 TH MARCH, 2019 DK COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI