Smt Anuradha Rajendra Gupta , Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 3255/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7265 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Tax effect
• Section: 54; 143(3); 54F; 72; 13; 22; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3 255 /BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 15 - 16 SMT. ANURADHA RAJENDRA GUPTA, SATHYANARAYANAN, NO. 1600, EAST END, MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 069. PAN: BNHPS0105H VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7 (2) (1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI H. GURUSWAMY, ITP REVENUE BY : SHRI PRAVEEN KARANTH, ADDL. CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 1 9 .0 6 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 .0 7 .2019 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-7, BANGALORE DATED 01.10.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER. GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAX EFFECT RELATING TO EACH GROUND OF APPEAL 1. THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DATED: 01-10-2018 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), BANGALORE-7 IS OPPOSED TO LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 54,18,924/- MADE BY THE AO BY CAUSING DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/ S. 54F OF THE ACT. RS. 15,79,994/- 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO WITHDRAW THE DEDUCTION ALLOWED AMOUNTING TO RS. 28,85,940/- IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH RESULTED IN ENHANCEMENT OF ASSESSMENT WITHOUT ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 251(1) OF THE ACT ON THE ABOVE ISSUE. RS. 5,77,188/- 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND AND DELETE ANY OF THE ITA NO. 3255/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 12 GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. TOTAL TAX EFFECT (SEE NOTE BELOW) RS. 21,57,182/ - 3. BRIEF FACTS TILL THE ASSESSMENT STAGE ARE NOTED BY CIT(A) IN PARA 4 OF HIS ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW FOR READY REFERENCE. 4. THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD A VACANT SITE SITUATED IN A LAYOUT FORMED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA STAFF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., KOTHANUR VILLAGE. UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK THROUGH A REGISTERED SALE DEED DTD: 03-04-2014 FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 90,00,000/-, THE APPELLANT AFTER SALE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, HAS PURCHASED. A FLAT IN AN APARTMENT CALLED DHANSU CLASSIC, NAYANAHALLI, BANERUGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE THROUGH A REGISTERED SALE DEED DTD: 25-04-2014 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 30,98,100/-. THE APPELLANT IN ADDITION TO THE PURCHASE OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY HAS ALSO PURCHASED ANOTHER FLAT IN THE APARTMENT CALLED 'M.S. ROYAL' SITUATED AT SY. NO. 7/4, AREKERE WARD NO. 193, IN AREKERE VILLAGE, BEGURLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 55.74,770/-, INCLUSIVE OF STAMP DUTY, ON 28-04-2014. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 54F IN RESPECT OF THE RE-INVESTMENT MADE IN THE AFORESAID 2 PROPERTIES. THE AO HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PROPERTY PURCHASED ON 25-04-2014 AMOUNTING TO RS. 28,85,940/- AND DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND PROPERTY PURCHASED ON 28-04-2014. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) AND THIS CONTENTION WAS RAISED BEFORE CIT(A) THAT DEDUCTION U/S. 54F SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF BOTH PROPERTIES PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE AMENDMENTS IN SECTION 54F W.E.F. 01.04.2015 AS PER WHICH IN PLACE OF THE WORDS CONSTRUCTED, A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THE FOLLOWING WORDS WERE INSERTED I.E. CONSTRUCTED, ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN INDIA. IN VIEW OF THIS AMENDMENT IN SECTION 54F BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2014 W.E.F. 01.04.2015, IT WAS HELD BY CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54F IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE HOUSE PROPERTIES PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ALLOWABLE. HE FURTHER NOTED IN PARA 6.2 OF HIS ORDER THAT AS PER THE PROVISO (A)(II) OF SECTION 54F(1), NO DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE U/S. 54F(1) IF THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET. HE ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE CONVEYING THIS POSITION OF LAW AND REQUESTING THE ASSESSEE TO RESPOND AS TO WHY HER CLAIM OF EXEMPTION / DEDUCTION U/S. 54F SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INVALID. THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE CIT(A) BUT CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIED AND HE HELD THAT NO DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE TO THE ITA NO. 3255/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 12 ASSESSEE U/S. 54F IN VIEW OF THIS PROVISO (A)(II) BELOW SECTION 54F (1). NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US IN RESPECT OF BOTH ASPECTS AS TO WHETHER THIS PROVISO (A)(II) TO SECTION 54F (1) IS APPLICABLE OR NOT AND IF DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE U/S. 54F THEN WHETHER THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED FOR ONE HOUSE OR TWO HOUSES. 5. THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGES 1 TO 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE SAME SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR DECIDING THIS APPEAL. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ARUN KUMAR NATHAN VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 1041/BANG/2017 DATED 25.10.2017, COPY AVAILABLE ON PAGES 83 TO 95 OF PAPER BOOK. IN PARTICULAR, OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO INTERNAL PAGE NO. 8 OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED BY HIM AS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 90 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS CASE THAT IN THE CASE OF MORE THAN ONE PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE OPTION IS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM BENEFIT U/S. 54 IN RESPECT OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PURCHASED FOR ASSESSEES OWN RESIDENCE. HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE AS PER THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE OPTION IS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE, EVEN IF IT IS HELD THAT DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE IN RESPECT OF ONE PROPERTY, THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF SECOND PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28.04.2014 AND NOT IN RESPECT OF FIRST PROPERTY PURCHASED ON 25.04.2014. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY HIM ON THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RUSI N. BILLIMORIA AS REPORTED IN 27 SOT 40. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FIRST OF ALL, WE REPRODUCE PARA NOS. 6.1 TO 6.5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A) BECAUSE THE DECISION OF CIT(A) IS CONTAINED IN THESE PARAS ALONG WITH THE REASONING. 6.1 IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT SECTION 54F HAS BEEN AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT 2014 WEF 01-04-2015 WHICH WAS NECESSITATED SINCE THE COURTS HAVE INTERPRETED PROVISIONS TO HOLD THAT EXEMPTION IS AVAILABLE EVEN IF INVESTMENT IS MADE IN MORE THAN ONE HOUSE. TO OVERCOME THESE JUDICIAL DECISIONS ON ALLOWING EXEMPTION FOR INVESTMENT IN MULTIPLE HOUSES AND ALSO TO RESOLVE CONTROVERSY AS REGARDS WHETHER THE INVESTMENT SHOULD BE IN A HOUSE IN INDIA, THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2014 HAS AMENDED SECTION 54(1) SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE EXEMPTION IS AVAILABLE, IF THE INVESTMENT IS MADE IN PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION ALONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SITUATED IN INDIA. THIS AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 2015 AND WILL, ACCORDINGLY, APPLY IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. ITA NO. 3255/BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 12 6.2 IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT THE AY BEING 2015-16, THE AMENDED PROVISION WILL APPLY AND THEREFORE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54F FOR INVESTMENT IN TWO RESIDENTIAL HOUSES IS NOT TENABLE. FURTHER, THE PROVISO TO THE SECTION STIPULATES THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE SUB-SECTION SHALL APPLY WHERE THE ASSESSEE PURCHASES ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET, WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR ALTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET. IN THIS CASE THE APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED TWO RESIDENTIAL HATS WITHIN ONE YEAR OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET WHICH MAKES HER DISQUALIFIED FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 54F. UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, A LETTER WAS ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT FROM THIS OFFICE CONVEYING THE ABOVE POSITION OF THE LAW AND REQUESTING THE APPELLANT TO RESPOND AS TO WHY HER CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54F SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INVALID. THE LETTER ISSUED WAS AS UNDER: IT IS SEEN THAT IN YOUR CASE FOR AY 2015-16 YOU HAVE RECEIVED INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF A PROPERTY ON 03- 04-2014. YOU HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY PURCHASED IWO RESIDENTIAL HOUSES ON 25-04-2014 AND 28-04-2014 AND HAVE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54F FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS 83,04,863/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF THESE TWO FIATS. THE AO HAS ALLOWED EXEMPTION OF RS 28,85,940/- U/S 54F BEING VALUE OF THE FLAT PURCHASED ON 24-04- 2014. 2. THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT I.E. CLAUSE (II) OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 54F (1) PROVIDES THAT NO EXEMPTION U/S 54F WILL BE ALLOWABLE WHERE THE ASSESSEE PURCHASES ANT, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET, WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET. IN VIEW OF THIS PROVISION, AS YOU HAVE PURCHASED TWO RESIDENTIAL FLATS WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE LAND (ORIGINAL ASSET), YOUR CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54F IS LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. 3. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE YOUR SUBMISSION, IF YOU SO DESIRE, EITHER IN PERSON OR THROUGH YOUR AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED ON 14-09-2018 AT 3.00PM. A WRITTEN SUBMISSION CAN ALSO BE FILED IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO APPEAR IN PERSON. 6.3 THE APPELLANT HAS FILED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THIS OFFICE ON 26-09- 2018 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 1. THE APPELLANT IN RESPONSE TO THE LETTER DTD: 21-08-2018 BEGS TO FILE THE FOLLOWING OBJECTION AGAINST THE PROPOSED DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER CLAUSE (II) OF THE PROVISO PROVIDED TO SECTION 54F OF THE ACT AS UNDER. 2. THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY FILED A DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DTD: 24-07-2018 PLACING RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS. I. THE JUDGMENT DTD: 04-07-2014 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF ITA NO. 3255/BANG/2018 PAGE 5 OF 12 KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF B. SRINIVAS V/S. ITO WARD- 3(3) BANGALORE IN ITA NO. 1134/2008, THE SAME WAS MARKED AS ANNEXURE - D OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DTD: 24-07-2018. (THE RELEVANT PARAS FOR REFERENCE ARE 8 AND 9) II. THE ORDER DTD: 25-10-2017 OF THE HON'BLE ITAT BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF ARUN KUMAR NATHAN V/S. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(3)(1), BANGALORE IN ITA NO. 1041/BANG/2017, THE SAME WAS MARKED AS ANNEXURE - E OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DTD: 24-07-2018. (THE RELEVANT PARA FOR REFERENCE IS 8) 3. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT AS PER THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S. 54F, EVEN IF TWO PROPERTIES ARE PURCHASED IN THE SAME LOCALITY. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT AS PER THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT, IF THE ASSESSEE PURCHASES TWO PROPERTIES IN THE SAME YEAR, THE OPTION IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54F IN RESPECT OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SO OPTED. IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PURCHASE3D ONE PROPERTY ON 25-04-2014 FOLLOWED A SECOND PROPERTY PURCHASED ON 28-04-2014 WITHIN A GAP OF 3 DAYS. THE PROPERTY PURCHASED ON 25-04-2014 NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR DEDUCTION AND THE SECOND PROPERTY PURCHASED ON 28-04-2014 NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DEDUCTION ADMISSIBLE U/S. 54F OF THE ACT. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AFTER THE PURCHASE OF SECOND PROPERTY ON 28- 04-2014, THE APPELLANT HAS NEITHER PURCHASED NOR CONSTRUCTED ANY OTHER NEW PROPERTY. THEREFORE, THE CLAUSE (II) TO THE PROVISO TO SECTION 54F OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE. THE APPELLANT SUBMIT THAT IT IS THE CHOICE OF THE APPELLANT TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY WHICH HE CONSIDERS BENEFICIAL AND THEREFORE THE DEDUCTION IS ADMISSIBLE IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT ON 28-04-2014 AS AGAINST THE PROPERTY PURCHASED ON 25-04-2014 AGAINST WHICH THE AO HAS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IN PARA 2 OF THE LETTER DTD: 21-08-2018 IT WAS MENTIONED AS UNDER:- CLAUSE (II) TO THE PROVISO TO SECTION 254F (1) PROVIDES THAT NO EXEMPT U/S. 54F IS NOT ALLOWABLE WHERE THE ASSESSEE PURCHASES ANY OTHER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET WITHIN A PERIOD OF 1 YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET' 6. IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION ENVISAGED AS 254F IN THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE QUOTED PROVISION AS TO 254F (1) IS NOT APPLICABLE. 7. THE APPELLANT WAS DIRECTED TO FILE A SUBMISSIONS ON OR BEFORE 14- ITA NO. 3255/BANG/2018 PAGE 6 OF 12 09-2018 AND ON THE SAID DATE THE APPELLANT APPEARED IN THE OFFICE. BUT UNABLE TO MEET THE CIT(A) SINCE HE WAS ON OFFICIAL DUTY AWAY FROM BANGALORE. 6.4 THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT IN THE PROVISION WEF 01-04-2015, THE APPELLANT WILL NOT BE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F FOR TWO RESIDENTIAL HOUSES. FURTHER, AS THE APPELLANT HAS INVESTED IN PURCHASE OF TWO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITHIN ONE YEAR OF SALE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, AS PER PROVISO (A) (II) TO SECTION 54F(1), THE LOSES THE ENTITLEMENT TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 54F. CLAUSE (II) (A) OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 54F(1) PROVIDES THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL APPLY WHERE THE ASSESSES PURCHASES ANY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET, WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET. FROM THE WORDINGS OF THE CLAUSE, IT IS CLEAR THAT ON SATISFACTION OF THE CONDITION MENTIONED THEREIN, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION WILL BE LOST AT THE VERY OUTSET. DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY ASSESSEE ARE NOT APPLICABLE AS THE SAME ARE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F BEFORE IT WAS AMENDED WEF AY 2015-16 AND ALSO THEY ARE NOT ON THE APPLICATION OF PROVISO (A) (II) TO SECTION 54F (1). RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE PUNE ITAT IN THE CASE OF RUSI N. BILLIMORIA 27 SOT 40. 6.5 IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY THE AO IS DIRECTED TO WITHDRAW THE EXEMPTION OF RS 28,85,940/- ALLOWED BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 7. WE ALSO REPRODUCE THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE AS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 1 TO 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE SAME ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE APPELLANT BEGS TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD: 28-12- 2017 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. 2. THE APPELLANT HAD OWNED A VACANT SITE BEARING NO.17, SITUATED IN SY. NOS. 99/1, 100/1, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 118, 120, 121/2, OF A LAYOUT FORMED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA STAFF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., KOTHANUR VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, MEASURING 1190 SQ.FT AND THE SAID PROPERTY WAS SOLD BY THE APPELLANT TO MRS. SHUBANJALI KARKADA AND SRI. SHASHIDHARA UPLADI BHATTA THROUGH A REGISTERED SALE DEED DTD: 03-04-2014 FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 90,00,000/-. A COPY OF THE SAID SALE DEED IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 8 TO 21 OF PAPER BOOK AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IS NOT IN DISPUTE. 3. THE APPELLANT AFTER SALE OF THE AFORESAID ORIGINAL PROPERTY, HAS PURCHASED A FLAT NO.3, DHANSU CLASSIC APARTMENT, NAYANAHALLI, BANERUGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE THROUGH A REGISTERED SALE DEED DTD: 25- 04-2014 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 30,98,100/- INCLUSIVE OF STAMP DUTY, REGISTRATION FEE AND OTHER INCIDENTAL EXPENSES. A COPY OF THE SAID ITA NO. 3255/BANG/2018 PAGE 7 OF 12 SALE DEED IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 22 TO 40 OF PAPER BOOK. 4. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO PURCHASED ANOTHER FLAT BEARING NO. 106, FIRST FLOOR, M.S. ROYAL APARTMENTS, SITUATED AT SY. NO. 7/4, AREKERE WARD NO. 193, IN AREKERE VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRACT FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 55,74,770/- INCLUSIVE OF STAMP DUTY, REGISTRATION FEE AND OTHER INCIDENTAL EXPENSES. A COPY OF THE SAID SALE DEED IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 41 TO 65 OF PAPER BOOK. 5.THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 54F IN RESPECT OF THE RE- INVESTMENT MADE IN THE AFORESAID 2 PROPERTIES PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT DTD: 04-07-2014 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF B.SRINIVAS V/S. ITO WARD - 3(3) BANGALORE IN ITA NO. 1134/2008. IN THE SAID JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HAS ALLOWED REINVESTMENT MADE IN TWO HOUSES SITUATED IN THE SAME LOCALITY. HOWEVER THE LD. AO HAS REJECTED THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF REINVESTMENT MADE IN TWO PROPERTIES BEING RESIDENTIAL HOUSES IN THE SAME LOCALITY ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 54F WAS AMENDED WITH EFFECT FROM 01-04-2015 AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF RE- INVESTMENT RELATING TO ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. 6.THE AO IN VIEW OF THE AMENDED PROVISION W.E.F 01-04-2015 HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT MADE ON A PROPERTY PURCHASED ON 25-04-2014 AMOUNTING TO RS. 30.98,100/- AND DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND PROPERTY PURCHASED ON 28-04- 2014 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 55,74,770/- INCLUSIVE OF STAMP DUTY, REGISTRATION FEE AND OTHER INCIDENTAL EXPENSES. 7. THE LD. AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF B.SRINIVAS V/S. ITO WARD-3(3) BANGALORE (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE, SINCE THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED PRIOR TO 01-04-2015 AND SECTION 54F WAS AMENDED W.E.F 01-04-2015 AND THEREFORE THE DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN ONE HOUSE AMOUNTING TO RS.28,85,940/- (EXCLUSIVE OF STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION FEE) AND THE SAME WAS ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PURCHASED ON 25-04-2014 IGNORING THE SECOND RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PURCHASED ON 28-04-2014. IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSET WAS SOLD PRIOR TO 01-04-2015 AND THE REINVESTMENT WAS ALSO MADE IN PURCHASE OF TWO HOUSES PRIOR TO THE DATE OF AMENDMENT OF SECTION 54F BEING 01-04-2015. THEREFORE THE LD. AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO DISALLOW THE DEDUCTION STATING THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS MADE W.E.F 01-04-2015 ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN TWO HOUSES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE REINVESTMENT WAS MADE IN PURCHASE OF TWO HOUSES PRIOR TO THE DATE OF AMENDMENT I.E., BEFORE 01-04-2015. A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF B. SRINIVAS V/S. ITO WARD -3(3) BANGALORE IS SUBMITTED HEREWITH FOR KIND PERUSAL AND CONSIDERATION AND THE SAME IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. ITA NO. 3255/BANG/2018 PAGE 8 OF 12 66 TO 74 OF PAPER BOOK (THE RELEVANT PARAS ARE 8 AND 9 OF THE ORDER). 8. THE AO HAS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE RE-INVESTMENT MADE IN PURCHASE OF FIRST HOUSE ON 25-04-2014 IGNORING THE SECOND.- RUSE WHICH WAS PURCHASED ON 28-04-2014. THE AO HAS CONSIDERED NE SEQUENTIAL ORDER OF PURCHASE AND ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENT MADE IN FIRST HOUSE. THE LD. AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION IN A SEQUENTIAL ORDER I.E., THE FIRST HOUSE ALONE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION AND NOT THE SECOND HOUSE. ON THE GROUND THAT RE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCT ANY OTHER HOUSE WITHIN A PERIOD OF 2 YEARS OR 3 YEARS AS THE CASE MAY BE. THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED FIRST HOUSE ON 25-04-2014 AND THEREAFTER THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCT ANOTHER HOUSE WITHIN A PERIOD OF 2 YEARS OR 3 YEARS AS CASE MAY BE AS PER SECTION 54F (2) OF THE ACT . IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT AS PER THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR THE REINVESTMENT MADE IN TWO HOUSES SITUATED IN THE SAME LOCALITY AND THEREFORE THE ENTIRE REINVESTMENT OF RS. 86,72,870/- IS ALLOWABLE. 9. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS :NAT THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM FOR REINVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 55.74,770/- OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF THE REINVESTMENT MADE IN PURCHASE OF SECOND HOUSE THROUGH A REGISTERED SALE DEED DTD: 28-04-2014 IGNORING THE REINVESTMENT MADE OF RS. 28.85,940/- (EXCLUSIVE OF STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION FEE) IN THE FIRST HOUSE PURCHASED ON 25-04-2014. 10. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BANGALORE- 7 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DISPUTED THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION ONLY IN RESPECT OF ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PURCHASED ON 25-04-2014 REJECTING THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM FOR THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT MADE ON 28-04-2014 AMOUNTING TO RS. 55,74,770/- IN PURCHASE OF A SECOND HOUSE. 11. THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE APPELLATE ORDER DTD: 01-10-2018 HAS HELD THAT :NE APPELLANT HAS CONTRAVENED THE PROVISO (A)(II) OF SECTION 54F (1) AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE REINVESTMENT MADE IN TWO HOUSE PROPERTIES. IN VIEW OF THE SAID FINDING THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO WITHDRAW THE EXEMPTION OF RS. 28,85,940/- ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RELATING TO THE INVESTMENT MADE IN PURCHASE OF FIRST HOUSE ON 25-04-2014 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS DTD: 24-07-2018 PLACED AT PAGE NO. 75 TO 79 OF PAPER BOOK AND ALSO THE ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS DTD: 14-09-2018 PLACED AT PAGE NO. 80 TO 82 OF PAPER BOOK. 12. THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD SUBMITS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT. JUSTIFIED TO DISALLOW THE DEDUCTION OF RS. 55,74,770/- INVESTED IN PURCHASE OF SECOND HOUSE AND ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED TO DIRECT THE AO TO WITHDRAW THE EXEMPTION ALLOWED OF RS. 28,85,940/- RELATING TO THE INVESTMENT MADE IN PURCHASE OF FIRST HOUSE ON 25-04-2014. ITA NO. 3255/BANG/2018 PAGE 9 OF 12 13. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION IN VIEW OF PROVISO (A)(II) OF SECTION 54F(1) OF THE ACT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ANY ONE OF THE PROPERTIES PURCHASED AND THEREAFTER THE PROVISO (A)(II) OF SECTION 54F(1) IS APPLICABLE. IN THIS CONTEXT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENT MADE ON ANY ONE OF THE PROPERTIES AND THEREAFTER THE PROVISO (A)(II) OF SECTION 54F (1) IS EFFECTIVE. THE APPELLANT AFTER HAVING PURCHASED A SECOND PROPERTY ON 28-04-2014 HAS NOT PURCHASED ANY OTHER PROPERTY AND THEREFORE THE PROVISO (A)(II) OF SECTION 54F(1) IS NOT APPLICABLE AND HENCE THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF REINVESTMENT MADE IN ACQUISITION OF TWO PROPERTIES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION AT LEAST IN RESPECT OF THE REINVESTMENT MADE IN ACQUISITION OF SECOND PROPERTY PURCHASED ON 28-04-2014 AMOUNTING TO RS. 55,74,770/- SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PURCHASED ANY OTHER PROPERTY AFTER 28-04-2014 AND AS SUCH THE PROVISO (A)(II) OF SECTION 54F (1) WAS NOT CONTRAVENED. 14. THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD BEGS TO PLACE RELIANCE ON THE ORDER DTD: 25-10-2017 OF THE HON'BLE ITAT BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF ARUN KUMAR NATHAN V/S. ACTT CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE IN ITA NO. 1041/BANG/2017. THE HON'BLE ITAT ON PAGE 8 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IN THE CASE OF MORE THAN ONE PROPERTIES ARE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE OPTION IS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT U/S. 54 IN RESPECT OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PURCHASED. A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT BANGALORE IN THE ABOVE CASE IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 83 TO 95 OF PAPER BOOK (THE RELEVANT PAGE 8 OF THE ORDER). 15. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT AS PER THE DECISION DTD: 25-10-2017 OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THE ABOVE CASE, THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND PROPERTY PURCHASED ON 28-04-2014 AND THEREFORE IT IS PRAYED THAT THIS HON'BLE BENCH BE PLEASED TO PASS ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DTD: 01-10- 2018 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT, AMOUNTING TO RS. 55,74,770/- RELATING TO THE REINVESTMENT MADE IN PURCHASE OF THE SECOND PROPERTY AS PER SALE DEED DTD: 28-04-2014 IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE. 8. WE FIRST DECIDE THIS ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54F IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE HOUSE PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE OR NOT BECAUSE IF IT IS FOUND BY US THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54F IN RESPECT OF BOTH HOUSE PROPERTIES THEN THE PROVISO (A)(II) TO SECTION 54(1) WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE IN THAT SITUATION, BOTH THE PROPERTIES PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WILL BE CONSIDERED AS A NEW ASSET AND SINCE APART FROM THESE TWO HOUSE PROPERTIES, NO OTHER HOUSE PROPERTY IS PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF SALE OF THE ASSET, ITA NO. 3255/BANG/2018 PAGE 10 OF 12 THIS PROVISO CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F (1) HAS BEEN AMENDED BY FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2014 W.E.F. 01.04.2015. IN THE PRE AMENDED PROVISIONS, THE FOLLOWING WORDS WERE PART OF SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 54F CONSTRUCTED, A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. BUT AS PER THE AMENDED PROVISIONS, THESE WORDS ARE REPLACED BY THE FOLLOWING WORDS CONSTRUCTED, ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN INDIA. IN VIEW OF THIS SPECIFIC PROVISION OF SECTION 54F, AFTER THE AMENDMENT W.E.F. 01.04.2015 I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16, DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE U/S. 54F(1) ONLY IN RESPECT OF ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PURCHASED OR CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, ON THIS ASPECT, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54F(1) IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE HOUSE PROPERTIES PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. NOW WE DEAL WITH THIS POSSIBLE QUESTION ALSO ALTHOUGH NOT ARGUED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS QUESTION MAY BE THAT SINCE THE FLATS WERE ACQUIRED ON 25.04.2014 AND 28.04.2014 AND THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 54F IS BY WAY OF FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT 2014 W.E.F. 01.04.2015, WHETHER THIS AMENDMENT IN SECTION 54F IS APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN THIS REGARD, WE HOLD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AS IN STATUTE BOOKS AS ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ARE APPLICABLE FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THEREFORE, THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F ARE APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THIS VIEW OF US IS SUPPORTED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF JAYAKUMARI AND DILHARKUMARI VS. CIT AS REPORTED IN 165 ITR 792. IN THIS CASE, THE FACTS WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD JEWELLERY ON 08.08.1972 AND BY THE FINANCE ACT, 1972 EFFECTIVE FROM 01.04.1973, GOLD ORNAMENTS AND JEWELLERY WERE INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSET. THIS WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE BEFORE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT THERE WAS NO CAPITAL GAIN DURING A. Y. 1973 74 BECAUSE SALE HAS TAKEN PLACE IN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR AND NOT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. BEFORE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON A JUDGMENT OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LAXMAN SINGH, 159 ITR 983. HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OBSERVED IN THIS JUDGMENT THAT THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BUT IN SPITE OF THIS, IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT THAT IN LINE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH ITA NO. 3255/BANG/2018 PAGE 11 OF 12 COURT IN THE CASE OF MANEKLAL VALLABHDAS PAREKH, 72 ITR 637, IT IS HELD THAT THOUGH THE SUBJECT OF THE CHARGE IS THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR, THE LAW TO BE APPLIED IS THAT IN FORCE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED OR IMPLIED. 10. AFTER HOLDING THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54F (1) IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE HOUSE PROPERTIES PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 25.04.2014 AND 28.04.2014, WE HAVE TO EXAMINE AND DECIDE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISO (A)(II) TO SECTION 54F (1). FOR READY REFERENCE, WE REPRODUCE THE PROVISO TO SECTION 54F (1). THE SAME IS AS UNDER. PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL APPLY WHERE (A) THE ASSESSEE, (I) OWNS MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET, ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET; OR (II) PURCHASES ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET, WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET; OR (III) CONSTRUCTS ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET, WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET; AND (B) THE INCOME FROM SUCH RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN THE ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OWNED ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY'. 11. IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THIS PROVISO, THIS IS THE ONLY SUBMISSION OF LD. AR OF ASSESSEE IN PARA 13 OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AS REPRODUCED ABOVE THAT SINCE AS PER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY PURCHASED ON 28.04.2014 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PURCHASED ANY OTHER PROPERTY AFTER THIS DATE, THIS PROVISO IS NOT APPLICABLE. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS CONTENTION OF LD. AR OF ASSESSEE BECAUSE AS PER THE PROVISO (A)(II) OF SECTION 54F (1) AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, THIS IS NOT THE REQUIREMENT THAT NO OTHER PROPERTY OTHER THAN THE NEW PROPERTY SHOULD BE PURCHASED AFTER THE PURCHASE OF NEW ASSET. IN FACT, THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PROVISO IS THIS THAT IF THE ASSESSEE PURCHASES ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSET, DEDUCTION IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S. 54F (1). HENCE WHETHER THE DEDUCTION U/S. 54F (1) IS ALLOWABLE IN RESPECT OF SECOND PROPERTY OR FIRST PROPERTY, IT IS NOT MATERIAL BECAUSE IN BOTH THE SITUATIONS, THE PROVISO WILL BE OPERATING AND AS A RESULT, THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54F (1). IN ITA NO. 3255/BANG/2018 PAGE 12 OF 12 VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AS PER WHICH HE HAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54F (1) IN THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (BEENA PILLAI) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 25 TH JULY, 2019. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.