SUDHA GARG,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 291/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2006-07 cuke Smt. Sudha Garg The ITO Vs. Plot No. 216, Katewa Nagar Ward- 6(4), Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFXPG 5829 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Advocate jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT- DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 17/02/2017 ?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 21/02/2017 vkns'k@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-2 , Jaipur dated 23-01-2015 for the assessment year 2006-07 raising following ground of appeal. ‘’That on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the disallowed exemption of Rs. 13 lacs made u/s 54EC of the I.T. Act, 1961 as the investment was made well before filing of return. Thus, exemption claimed u/s 54EC of the

2 ITA No.291/JP/2015 Smt. Sudha Garg vs. ITO, Ward- 6(4), Jaipur I.T. Act and disallowed by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be quashed.

2.1 Apropos solitary ground of the assessee, the facts as emerges from

the order of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:-

‘’4.3 I have perused the fats of the case, the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. The appellant sold the above immovable property on 28-05-2005. For claiming deduction u/s 54C, the appellant should have invested the money in National Housing Bond within a period of six months from the date of transfer of the immovable property. This time period of six months expired on 2-11-2005 whereas the appellant has made investment in National Housing Board on 02-01-2006 which is two months after lapse of the statutory period. The appellant has relied upon the case of Jagan Nath Lodha vs. ITO of the ITAT Jodhpur Bench. The Assessing Officer has rightly stated that the issue in this case was regarding delay in investment in capital gains account and not delay for the purposes of claiming deduction u/s 54EC. Therefore, the stand of the Assessing Officer of not allowing deduction u 54C is upheld. This ground is dismissed.

2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that

the lower authorities have erred in disallowing exemption of Rs. 13.00

3 ITA No.291/JP/2015 Smt. Sudha Garg vs. ITO, Ward- 6(4), Jaipur lacs made u/s 54EC of the I.T. Act as the investment had been made well

before the filing of the return. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of

the assessee to this effect relied on following case laws.

2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities

below.

2.4 I have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials

available on record. The issue in question is that the assessee had made

investment of Rs. 13.00 lacs in National Housing Bonds and claimed

exemption u/s 54EC of the Act for which the assessee had produced copy

of certificate of holding the bond before the AO. As per copy of the

certificate, the AO noticed that the investment in the National Housing

4 ITA No.291/JP/2015 Smt. Sudha Garg vs. ITO, Ward- 6(4), Jaipur Bond had been made by the assessee on 02-01-2006. As per the AO, in

order to avail of the benefit of Section 54C of the Act, the assessee should

have made investment in the bond on or before 2-11-2005 i.e. within six

months from the date of the transfer of the property. In this case, the

assessee made investment in the National Housing Bond on 02-01-2006

which is after 08 months from the date of sale of property. According to

the AO, the assessee failed to make investment in the specified Bond

within the stipulated period under the provisions of Section 54EC of the

Act. The AO therefore, did not allow the exemption to the assessee u/s

54EC of the Act which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in first

appeal looking into the facts and circumstances of the case. The ld. AR

claims that the bonds of National Housing Bonds were not available

during the period and the bonds of National Housing Bonds were made

available only after the due date for claiming exemption u/s 54EC of the

Act. He pleaded that assessee could not asked to do impossible work.

Assessee's case is governed by doctrine of supervening impossibilities.

Therefore, the assessee should be given benefit of claim of deduction u/s

54EC of the Act. For verification in my considered view, it will be in the

interest of equity and justice to restore the issue to the file of the AO to

decide it afresh by providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the

5 ITA No.291/JP/2015 Smt. Sudha Garg vs. ITO, Ward- 6(4), Jaipur assessee in accordance with law and also taking into consideration the case laws cited by the ld. AR of the assessee (supra) The assessee is also directed to produce the necessary evidence before the AO in this regard. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21 /02/2017. Sd/- ¼HkkxpUn½ (Bhagchand) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 21/02/ 2017 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Smt. Sudha Garg, Jaipur izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward- 6(4), Jaipur 2. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@ CIT(A). vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT, 4. 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 291/JP/2015) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत