Shri. Shrikrishna Shankarrao Jog, Nagpur V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-Circle-1, Nagpur

ITA 88/NAG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9190 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 10 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: U U KASAR
• Assessee Lawyers: V V SARANJAME
• Keywords: Capital asset

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR . , , , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO. 88 /NAG /201 1 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 7 - 08 SMT. VRUNDA R. PATWARDHAN, L/H SHRI K RISHNA SHANKARRAO JOG, 202 PATWARDHAN APARTMENTS, OPP. PATWARDHAN HIGH SCHOOL, SONI LANE SITABULDI, NAGPUR PAN : A DFPJ8697J ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, NAGPUR / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : S HRI V.V. SARA NJAME REVENUE BY : SHRI U.U. KASAR / DATE OF HEARING : 2 6 - 03 - 2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 - 03 - 201 9 2 ITA NO . 88/NAG/2011, A.Y. 2007 - 08 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - I , NAGPUR DATED 28 - 02 - 2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 08 . 2. THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL HAS RAISED 3 GROUNDS AS UNDER : 1. THAT, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) I WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN GIVING DIRECTION FOR COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ONLY. (RS.38,75, 688/ - ). 2. THAT, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) I WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW I N REFUSING DEDUCTION U/S. 54EC ON INVESTMENT OF RS.7,00,000/ - . 3. WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE HONOURABLE MEMBERS THE APPELLANT BE KINDLY ALLOWED TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. 3. SHRI V.V. SARAMJAM APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL. 3.1 IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 2 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE DENIED THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54EC O F THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) ON INVESTMENT OF RS.7,00,000/ - IN THE SPECIFIED BONDS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRANSFERRED CAPITAL ASSET ON 15 - 04 - 2006. THE ASSESSEE HA D SIX MONTHS TIME FOR 3 ITA NO . 88/NAG/2011, A.Y. 2007 - 08 INVESTMENT IN SPECIFI ED BONDS I.E. UP TO 15 - 10 - 2006. THEREAFTER, THE EXTENSION WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TILL 31 - 12 - 2006. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED BONDS IN FEBRUARY, 2007. THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54EC WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE BONDS WERE PURCHASED BEYOND THE DUE DATE. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54EC ARE BENEFICIAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE, SHOULD BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY. 4. SHRI U.U. KASAR REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY DEFEND ED THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54EC CLEARLY STATES THAT THE INVESTMENT HAS TO BE MADE IN SPECIFIED BONDS WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN BONDS MUCH AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54EC OF THE A CT. 5. BOTH SIDES HEARD. ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW PERUSED. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE STATED AT THE BAR THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4 ITA NO . 88/NAG/2011, A.Y. 2007 - 08 6. IN GROUND NO. 2 THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED DENIAL OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54EC ON INVESTMENT OF RS.7,00,000/ - . UNDISPUTEDLY, THE INVESTMENT TOWARDS PURCHASE OF SPECIFIED BONDS IS AFTER THE LAPSE OF SIX MONTHS TIME SPECIFIED IN SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT. THE BENEFIT OF EXEM PTION U/S. 54EC CAN BE CLAIMED ONLY WHEN THE INVESTMENT IS MADE WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET. IN VIEW OF UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE AND SPECIFIC PROVISION S OF SECTION 54EC , WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIR MITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD AND THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERITS. 7. THE GROUND NO. 3 RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS GENERAL IN NATURE, HENCE, REQUIRES NO ADJUDICATION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APP EAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 27 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019. SD/ - SD/ - ( . /D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) ( / VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / NAGPUR ; / DATED : 27 TH MARCH, 2019. RK 5 ITA NO . 88/NAG/2011, A.Y. 2007 - 08 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - I, NAGPUR 4. / THE CIT - I, NAGPUR 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR . 6. / GUARD FILE. / / // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY, , / ITAT, NAGPUR