{"id":5392,"date":"2012-08-17T07:16:18","date_gmt":"2012-08-17T07:16:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=5392"},"modified":"2012-08-17T07:16:18","modified_gmt":"2012-08-17T07:16:18","slug":"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","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/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\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT vs. Cello Plast (Bombay High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=803\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=803&varname2=cello_plast_54EC_time_limit_investment.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (cello_plast_54EC_time_limit_investment.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nFact that s. 54EC bonds were available during the 6 months &#038; that there were alternative bonds available irrelevant if the bonds not available on the last date<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>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 (\u201cREC Bonds\u201d) on 31.1.2007, <em>beyond the period of 6 months<\/em> (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 <em>bonds were not available<\/em> and the investment was made when available. The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#8217;s claim (<em>included in file<\/em>). Before the High Court, the department argued that (a) even if the bonds were not available for a part of the period, they were <em>available<\/em> for some time in the period after the transfer (1.7.2006 to 3.8.2006) and the assessee ought to have invested then &#038; (b) the s. 54EC bonds issued by <em>National Highway Authority<\/em> (NHAI) were available and the assessee could have invested in them. HELD by the High Court dismissing the appeal: <\/p>\n<p>(i) The department&#8217;s contention that the <strong>assessee ought to have invested<\/strong> in the period that the s. 54EC <strong>bonds were available<\/strong> (1.7.2006 to 3.8.2006) after the transfer is not well founded. The assessee was <strong>entitled to wait till the last date<\/strong> (21.9.2006) to invest in the bonds. As of that date, the bonds were not available. The fact that they were <strong>available in an earlier period<\/strong> after the transfer <strong>makes no difference<\/strong> because the assessee <strong>right to buy the bonds upto the last date<\/strong> cannot be prejudiced. <em>Lex not cogit impossibila<\/em> (law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform) and <em>impossibilum nulla oblignto est<\/em> (law does not expect a party to do the impossible) are well known maxims in law and would squarely apply to the present case;<\/p>\n<p>(ii) The department&#8217;s contention that the assessee ought to have purchased the <strong>alternative<\/strong> 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 <strong>revenue cannot insist<\/strong> that the assessee ought to have invested in the NHAI bonds. <\/p>\n<div class=\"journal2\">\nSee also <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/mahesh-nemichandra-ganeshwade-vs-ito-itat-pune-s-54ec-if-investment-within-6-months-of-transfer-is-impossible-then-relief-available-if-investment-made-within-6-months-of-receipt-of-consideration\/\">Mahesh Nemichandra Ganeshwade<\/a><\/strong> (ITAT Pune) &#038; <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/chanchal-kumar-sircar-vs-ito-itat-kolkota-s-54ec-investment-time-limit-begins-from-date-of-receipt-of-consideration\/\">Chanchal Kumar Sircar<\/a><\/strong> 50 SOT 289 (Kol) where the &#8220;<em>impossibility<\/em>&#8221; principle was applied to cases of late receipt of consideration from the buyer<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p><!--\n\n\n\n\n\n\/\/--><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The department&#8217;s contention that the <strong>assessee ought to have invested<\/strong> in the period that the s. 54EC <strong>bonds were available<\/strong> (1.7.2006 to 3.8.2006) after the transfer is not well founded. The assessee was <strong>entitled to wait till the last date<\/strong> (21.9.2006) to invest in the bonds. As of that date, the bonds were not available. The fact that they were <strong>available in an earlier period<\/strong> after the transfer <strong>makes no difference<\/strong> because the assessee <strong>right to buy the bonds upto the last date<\/strong> cannot be prejudiced. <em>Lex not cogit impossibila<\/em> (law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform) and <em>impossibilum nulla oblignto est<\/em> (law does not expect a party to do the impossible) are well known maxims in law and would squarely apply to the present case<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/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\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5392","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5392","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5392"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5392\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5392"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5392"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5392"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}