SHRI. SHRIKRISHNA SHANKARRAO JOG,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

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 in 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.”

Shri V.V. Saramjam appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that he is not pressing ground No. 1 of the appeal.

Shri U.U. Kasar representing the Department vehemently defended the order of Commissioner of 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 assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 54EC of the Act.

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.

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 exemption 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 provisions of section 54EC, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the same is upheld and the appeal of assessee is dismissed being devoid of any merits.

The ground No. 3 raised in the appeal is general in nature, hence, requires no adjudication.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.