Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4789 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
9 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
25-05-2018
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
A
Assessment Year
2014-2015
Appeal Filed On
23-08-2017
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE S HRI N.V. VASUDEVAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T . (I.T) A. NO. 1721 /BANG/20 17 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 14 - 15 ) INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TRANS ACTIONS), WARD 1(2), BANGALORE. . APPELLANT. VS. MS. B. NANDITA REDDY, NO.87, 15THCROSS, 15 TH MAIN, INDIRANAGAR, 2 ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 084 . .. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : DR. SANDEEP GOEL, ADDL. CIT (D.R) R E SPONDENT BY : SHRI C. RAMESH, C.A. DATE OF H EARING : 21.05.2018. DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 25 .05 .201 8 . O R D E R PER SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO , A .M . : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 12 , BANGALORE DT.19.6.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 14 - 15. 2. THE REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 2 IT (IT) A NO. 1721 /BANG/201 7 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND NON - RESIDENT INDIAN (NRI) DERIVING INCOME UNDER THE HEADS CAPITAL GAINS AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15 ON 8.7.2014 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,32,650. AGAINST THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DT.30.12.2016 PASSED UNDER SECT ION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.88,06,650. THE DISPARITY BETWEEN THE RETURNED INCOME AND ASSESSED INCOME IS ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION OF RS.84,74,000 DENYING THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. 4 . BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE ABOVE ADDITION ARE AS UNDER : 3 IT (IT) A NO. 1721 /BANG/201 7 4.1 THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE SOLD PROPERTY SITUATED AT HUTCHINS MAIN ROAD, CORPORATION WARD NO.86, BANGALORE FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,73,00,000 IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE SHARE IN TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.91,00,000 , FOR WHICH THE NET SALE PROCEEDS WAS DETERMINED AT RS.84,74, 000 , WHICH WERE INVESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SITUATED OUTSIDE INDIA I.E. IN MALAYSIA, AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SE CTION 54F OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F ON THE GROUND THAT THE LEGISLATURE CONTEMPLATED THAT PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE ONLY IN INDIA. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BROUGHT TO TAX THE CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 91,00,000 . BEING AGGRIEVED, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) VIDE ORDER DT.19.6.2017 ALLOWED THE APPEAL FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VINAY MISHRA VS. A CIT 141 ITR 301 (BANG. TRIB) AND HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF JUGALKISHOR SHAH VS. ACIT (TAX APPEAL NO.483 OF 2006) DT.14.6.2016 BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 4 IT (IT) A NO. 1721 /BANG/201 7 5 IT (IT) A NO. 1721 /BANG/201 7 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT SECTION 54F OF THE ACT WAS NOT AVAILABLE AS FAR AS THE INVESTMENT IN NEW HOUSE PROPERTY IS SITUATED AT ABROAD. 6 IT (IT) A NO. 1721 /BANG/201 7 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT NO INTERFERENC E IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IS CALLED FOR AS THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) AND HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION (SUPRA) WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HA VE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE RELIEF UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT IS ADMISSIBLE IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY SITUATED OUTSIDE INDIA. THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TR IBUNAL HELD THAT SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF ACT, DOES NOT EMANATES THAT NEW HOUSE PROPERTY SHOULD BE SITUATED IN INDIA. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) GRANTED RELIEF FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE IN THE CASE OF VINAY MISH RA VS. ACIT (SUPRA) AND HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF JUGALKISHOR SHAH VS. ACIT (SUPRA). ADMITTEDLY, THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT BY THE LEGISLATURE IS ONLY PROSPECTIVE AND IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THER EFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7 IT (IT) A NO. 1721 /BANG/201 7 8. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 201 8 . SD/ - (N.V. VASUDEVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DT. 25 .05.2018. *REDDY GP COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 4 CIT(A) 2 RESPONDENT 5 DR. ITAT, BANGALORE 3 CIT 6 GUARD FILE SENIOR PRIVATE SECRET ARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE.
