ITO, CHENNAI V. S.Lakshmi, L/H of Late N.S.Srinivasan, Bangalore

MA 322/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5404 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 17-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N MADHAVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: B GOWTHAMAN
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Tax effect

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . ,$% BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.322/MDS/2016 IN I.T.A.NO.1053/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08) INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 2(1), CHENNAI VS S. LAKSHMI, L/H OF LATE N.S. SRINIVASAN, 112,OCEANUS-EBONY APARTMENTS, BELLANDUIR (POST), BANGALORE -560103 PAN:AAZPS1905K (PETITIONER) ( /RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : MR. N. MADHAVAN, ADDL. CIT /RESPONDENT BY : MR.B. GOWTHAMAN, CA /DATE OF HEARING : 17 TH FEBRUARY, 2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 TH FEBRUARY, 2017 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM: THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED BY THE REVENUE PRAYING FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE APPARENT ON RE CORD BY RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ITA NO.1053/MDS/2016 DATED 13.06.2016. 2. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE BENCH HAD DISMISSE D THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BECAUSE OF THE MONETARY L IMIT FIXED BY THE CBDT IN CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10.1 2.2015 INSTRUCTING ITS OFFICERS TO WITHDRAW ALL THE APPEAL S PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS TH AT RS.10 2 M.P.NO.322/MDS/2016 LAKHS. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE THERE WAS AN AUDIT OB JECTION THEREFORE THE AFORESAID CIRCULAR WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT T HE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT BASED ON THE CORRECT FACTS OF THE CASE, HENCE THERE IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND IT REQUIRES TO BE RECALLED. 3. THE LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND EXPLAINED THAT THE ADDITION WAS DUE TO THE BELATED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSES SEE FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT, AND THE IS SUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS AKBAR ALI DHALA IN T.C. (A ) NO.49 OF 2014 (MADRAS HIGH COURT) DATED 14 TH JULY 2014 REPORTED IN 2014-TIOL-1319-HC-MAD-IT, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT, EVEN THOUGH THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE BEYOND THE STIPULATE D PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS DUE TO NON-AVAILABILITY OF THE BOND DURING THAT PERIOD. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO, TH E BOND WAS NOT AVAILABLE DURING THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF SIX M ONTHS, HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED IN THE BOND WITHI N THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AFTER IT WAS AVAILABLE. 3 M.P.NO.322/MDS/2016 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, I FIND MERIT IN THE SU BMISSION OF THE LD. AR SINCE THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IS DECIDED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL MADRAS HIGH COURT SUPRA IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, I DO NOT FIND IT NECESSA RY TO INTERFERE WITH MY EARLIER ORDER BECAUSE THE AUDIT O BJECTION WILL NOT SURVIVE. 5. ACCORDINGLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 17 TH FEBRUARY, 2017. SD/- ( . ) ( A.MOH AN ALANKAMONY ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, !' /DATE : 17.02.2017 JR #$ %&'()& /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. # # *((') /CIT(A) 4. # # * /CIT 5. &./ 0 /DR 6. /12 /GF .