9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (11) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rchased out of income not chargeable to tax." 3. The assessee is an individual deriving income from salary. On 28-3-1984 relevant for the assessment year 1984-85 the assessee received a sum of Rs. 31,320 from the Life Insurance Corporation as maturity value of a Life Insurance Policy. He stated that he invested a sum of Rs. 27,000 out of the above amount in purchasing National Savings certificates in September 1984 relevant of the assessment year 1985-86 which is under consideration. The assessee's claim for relief under section 80C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was rejected by the Income-tax Officer on the Income-tax Act, 1961 was rejected by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the investment in National Savings Certificates was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id not purchase the certificates in that year and he will also not get relief in the second year on the ground that the amount invested did not come from the income taxed in the second year. On the basis of the above reasoning, the AAC directed the ITO to allow relief under section 80C of the Act even on the fund invested out of the maturity amount received from the LIC. 5. Shri S. Dasgupta, the learned representative for the department, urged before us that the AAC erred in his decision. He referred to section 80C(2)(a)(i) of the Act. This section clearly states that the sums which will qualify for relief should come out of the income chargeable to tax. Then, he referred to section 80A which refers to 'total income' which is defined unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 25,000 came out of the sums received from the LIC on the maturity of a policy and not out of income of the previous year or any other year. It is now well settled that the onus to prove that a certain amount is entitled to relief under the Act is on the assessee who claims such relief. Where the language of the statute is plain and clear it cannot be discarded on any pretext vide the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar Sons (P.) Ltd. [1975] 101 ITR 764. Again, it has been held by the Supreme Court it the case of Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Third ITO [1975] 101 ITR 24 that mere harshness of a taxing statute cannot invalidate it. The rule that an interpretation favourable to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbiguity about the same. There is only one interpretation possible from the language used by the Legislature and so there is no question of giving any benefit of doubt because of the possibility of two reasonable interpretations. The example given by the AAC is not to the point as it ignores the express provisions of the statute. The above understanding of ours does not involve any manifest absurdity. Hence, relying on the guidelines laid down by the aforesaid authorities, we come to the conclusion that the assessee has not been able to establish that his claim comes within the four corners of the language used in section 80C(2) and so we do not agree with the decision of the AAC on this point. We also find support for this conclusion of ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
