2022 (5) TMI 690

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the Writ Petition filed by the assessee has been dismissed. 2. The appellant, an income tax assessee had filed return of income relating to the assessment year 2003-04 declaring NIL income after claiming the exemption of capital gains in terms of Section 54EC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['Act' for short]. It transpires that the appellant had sold the property on 03.08.2002 located at No.3304, HAL II Stage, Bengaluru through a registered sale deed. The appellant had invested Rs.25,00,000/- in Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., ['REC' for short] bonds on 05.02.2003. The Assessing Authority having opined that the investment should have been made on or before 03.02.2003 denied the benefit of Section 54EC of the Act and had brought to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 09.06.2015. The delay in investing the amount in bonds was only of two days and a genuine ground was put forth for condoning the said delay of two days which was unintentional. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the factum that the application under Section 119[2][b] of the Act was made by the assessee on 24.05.2011. At that time, there was no time limit prescribed for filing such application. The Board Circular No.9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 has provided a period of six years from the end of the assessment year for which the application/claim was made. Clause [4] of the said Circular was referred to. Learned counsel further submitted that application of the Circular dated 09.06.2015 retrospectively by the first respondent i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of delay under section 119(2xb) which are pending as on the date of issue of the Circular." 8. Indisputably, application under Section 119[2][b] of the Act was filed by the appellant - assessee on 24.05.2011 before the respondent No.1. Had the respondent No.1 considered the said application before issuance of the Circular dated 09.06.2015, certainly the said application would not have been rejected on the ground of delay i.e., beyond the period of six years as specified in the Circular dated 09.06.2015. It is also not in dispute that no provisions of the Act and Rule prescribes the period of limitation for filing the application under Section 119[2][b], it is only by virtue of the Circular dated 09.06.2015, period of limitation of six ....