Published On: Mon, Aug 20th, 2012

Investment in Capital Gain Tax Bonds is choice of Assessee

By Accommodation Times Bureau
CIT vs. Cello Plast (Bombay High Court) : Fact that s. 54EC bonds were available during the 6 months & that there were alternative bonds available irrelevant if the bonds not available on the last date.

The assessee sold factory building on 22.3.2006 and earned LTCG of Rs.49.36 lakhs. The LTCG was invested in s. 54EC bonds of Rural Electrification Corporation (“REC Bonds”) on 31.1.2007, beyond the period of 6 months (21.9.2006) specified in s. 54EC. The assessee claimed that the delay was due to the fact that for the period from 4.8.2006 to 22.1.2007, the bonds were not available and the investment was made when available. The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim (included in file). Before the High Court, the department argued that (a) even if the bonds were not available for a part of the period, they were available for some time in the period after the transfer (1.7.2006 to 3.8.2006) and the assessee ought to have invested then & (b) the s. 54EC bonds issued by National Highway Authority (NHAI) were available and the assessee could have invested in them. HELD by the High Court dismissing the appeal:

(i) The department’s contention that the assessee ought to have invested in the period that the s. 54EC bonds were available (1.7.2006 to 3.8.2006) after the transfer is not well founded. The assessee was entitled to wait till the last date (21.9.2006) to invest in the bonds. As of that date, the bonds were not available. The fact that they were available in an earlier period after the transfer makes no difference because the assessee right to buy the bonds upto the last date cannot be prejudiced. Lex not cogit impossibila (law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform) and impossibilum nulla oblignto est (law does not expect a party to do the impossible) are well known maxims in law and would squarely apply to the present case;

(ii) The department’s contention that the assessee ought to have purchased the alternative s. 54EC NHAI bonds is also not well founded because if s. 54EC confers a choice investing either in the REC bonds or the NHAI bonds, the revenue cannot insist that the assessee ought to have invested in the NHAI bonds.
(ITAT Report)

Accommodationtimes Institute
Diploma In RERA Diploma In REE Accommodationtimes Institute

About the Author


Displaying 1 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. vswami says:

    The title of the write-up, in one’s view, as normally expected, does not fairly and fully bring out / reflect the true substance of what the HC has ruled. The court’s ruling is really on the point of issue, – whether the delay in investment is not without valid reason, as it is because of unavailability of the 54EC Bond of his choice, hence delay should be condoned and the benefit of tax exemption must be granted,

Leave a comment