Sri Joseph K.Zachariah , Bangalore V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 879/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0648 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 23-12-2020
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R PREMI
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATIK R
• Keywords: Capital asset; Benefit of exemption; Condonation of delay; Capital Gains
• Section: 54F; 201; 139(1); 139(4); 72; 54; 139

Judgement Text

IT(IT)A NO.879/BANG/2019 SRI JOSEPH K ZACHARIAH, BANGALORE IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A NO.879/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SRI JOSEPH K. ZACHARIAH D-303, R&S RIVIERA APARTMENTS RACHENAHALLI MAIN ROAD THANISANDRA BENGALURU-560 077 PAN NO : AKZPK1570C VS. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2) BENGALURU APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRATIK R., A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. R. PREMI, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 23.12.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.12.2020 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-12, BENGALURU DATED 30.3.2019. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, IN THE FACT S AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IS GROSSLY OPPOSED TO LAW, ERRONEOUS , AND UNSUSTAINABLE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WA S GROSSLY IN ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ENTI TLED TO THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE SUM OF RS. 2.59 CRORES THAT WAS INVESTED IN THE CONSTRUCTION O F THE NEW IT(IT)A NO.879/BANG/2019 SRI JOSEPH K ZACHARIAH, BANGALORE PAGE 2 OF 9 RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AFTER THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139(1). 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT F OLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNAT AKA IN ITS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SHRI. K. RAMACHANDRA RAO (I TA NO. 47/2014, 46/2014, 494/2013 AND 495/2013) TO HOLD TH AT WHERE THE INTENTION WAS NOT TO RETAIN CASH BUT TO INVEST IN C ONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE DENI ED THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54 FOR NOT DEPOSITING THE UNUTILI ZED CAPITAL GAIN IN THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT, SO LONG AS THE CONSTR UCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS COMPLETE WITHIN THE TIME PERMI SSIBLE U/S. 54(1) OF THE ACT. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND HAVING REGARD TO THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION 'A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE' APPEARING IN SEC.5 4(1) AS CLARIFIED BY VARIOUS COURTS INCLUDING THE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS IN ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLAN T WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE EXEMPTION U/S. 54 IN RESPECT OF THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CONSTRUCTED IN BANGALORE AS W ELL AS THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PURCHASED IN CHICAGO, USA WITHIN THE TIME STIPULATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.54(1). 2. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 ['THE ACT' FOR SHORT] ON THE FO LLOWING REASONS: 1. THE TOTAL SUM RS.7,59,92,601/- HAS BEEN INVESTED IN THE NEW ASSET I.E. RESIDENTIAL HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION WIT HIN THE DUE DATE U/S. 139(1) I.E. 31.7.2014 AS OPPOSED TO THE C APITAL GAINS OF RS.10,80,96,500/- WHICH ACTUALLY HAD TO BE INVESTED. 2. THE BALANCE CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 2,59,03,899/- WHICH HAD TO BE EITHER INVESTED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTI AL HOUSE OR DEPOSITED IN THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT, COULD NOT BE DONE IN VIEW OF THE TAX WITHHELD BY THE BUYER OF THE PROPER TY, WHICH WAS YET TO BE REFUNDED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 3. APPLICATION U/S.119(2) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 WAS MADE TO THE CBDT ON 01.2.2014 I.E. BEFORE THE FILING OF THE RET URN OF INCOME FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN MAKING THE INVES TMENT IN THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WHICH WAS A PRE-CONDITION FOR THE CLAIM OF U/S. 54. IT(IT)A NO.879/BANG/2019 SRI JOSEPH K ZACHARIAH, BANGALORE PAGE 3 OF 9 4. DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS.3.30 CRORES ON 15.6.2015 IN T HE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT WHEN THE REFUND CLAIM FOR 201 4-15 WAS RECEIVED. 5. SINCE, THE DELAY IN THE INVESTMENT IN THE NEW ASSET FOR CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54 WAS ATTRIBUTABLE BEYOND THE CO NTROL OF THE ASSESSE IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE EXEMPTION MAY BE ALLOWED. 3. THE LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. K. RAMA CHANDRA RAO (277 CTR 522), HOWEVER, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON T HE REASON THAT UNUTILIZED AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS SHOULD BE I NVESTED IN THE CAPITAL GAIN SCHEME NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOV ERNMENT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEPOSITED THE UNUTILIZED PORTION O F CAPITAL GAINS INTO THE CAPITAL GAIN DEPOSIT SCHEME BEFORE T HE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME, SAME WAS DENIED. NO W THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R. IS THAT SECTION 54 OF TH E ACT DOES NOT MENTION THE DUE DATE AS MENTIONED IN SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. AS SUCH, IT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD THAT EXTENDED DATE IS AVAILABLE AS PER SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT. ACCORD INGLY, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE AC T IF THE UNUTILIZED CAPITAL GAIN IS INVESTED BEFORE THE DUE DATE AS MENTIONED IN SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE OR DER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE HA VE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGEMENT OF JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K. RAMA CHANDRA RAO (S UPRA). IN THE PRESENT CASE, ASSESSEE EARNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT IT(IT)A NO.879/BANG/2019 SRI JOSEPH K ZACHARIAH, BANGALORE PAGE 4 OF 9 RS.10,18,96,500/- . THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED IN C ONSTRUCTION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT RS.7,59,92,601/- WITHIN THE DUE DATE U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT I.E. 31.7.2014. THE ASS ESSEE IS HAVING BALANCE CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.2,59,03,899/-, W HICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN USED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL H OUSE OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCO UNT NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN TERMS OF SECTION 54(2) OF THE ACT. THUS, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT IN VESTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,59,03,899/- WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN I NVESTED IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME. IN OTHER WORDS, AS PER SECTION 54(2) OF THE ACT, IF THE CAPITAL GAIN IS NOT APPROP RIATED TOWARDS PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASSET BEFORE ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET OR IS NOT UTILIZED F OR THE PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ASSET BEFORE THE DATE OF F URNISHING THE DATE OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 OF THE ACT, SUCH U NUTILIZED CAPITAL GAIN HAS TO BE DEPOSITED IN A CAPITAL ACCOU NT SCHEME, BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INC OME PROVIDED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. THUS, SECTION 54(2) OF THE ACT HAS TWO CONDITIONS FOR AVAILING DEDUCTION U/S 54(1) OF THE ACT. FIRSTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO UTILIZE THE CAPITAL GAIN IN PUR CHASE OF NEW PROPERTY BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETU RN OF INCOME U/S 139 OF THE ACT, WHICH ENCOMPASSES SUB-SECTION ( 1), SUB- SECTION (4) & SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. SECONDLY, IF IT IS NOT DONE SO, IT HAS TO BE DEPOSI TED IN A CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FURNISHI NG RETURN OF INCOME AS PROVIDED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. IN TH E PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ON 13.6.2014 BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FI LING RETURN U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, BY THAT TIME, HE H AS NOT UTILIZED THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,59,03,849/- IN CONSTRUC TION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OR DEPOSITED THE SAME IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME AS NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. IN O THER WORDS, IT(IT)A NO.879/BANG/2019 SRI JOSEPH K ZACHARIAH, BANGALORE PAGE 5 OF 9 UNUTILIZED CAPITAL GAIN SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN U/ S 139(1) OF THE ACT. NOW THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R. IS THA T EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED UNUTILIZED PORTION OF CAPITAL GA IN AFTER THE DUE DATE PROVIDED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE I S ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. THIS ARGUMENT CANNOT BE UPHELD. TO AVAIL BENEFIT U/S 54 OF THE ACT, UNUTILIZED PORT ION OF CAPITAL GAINS SHALL BE DEPOSITED BY ASSESSEE IN CAPITAL GAI N ACCOUNT SCHEME BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOM E U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT AS PRESCRIBED U/S 54(2) OF THE ACT. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE MADE AN ALTERNAT IVE ARGUMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT IN PURCH ASE OF HOUSE AT CHICAGO IN USA WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME U/S 139(4) OF THE ACT. EVEN THE INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL PRO PERTY IN FOREIGN COUNTRY, HE HAS ALSO ENTITLED THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM SUCH DEDUCTION. AS HELD BY COORDINATE BENCH IN IT(IT)A NO.15/BANG/2019 IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJASUGUMAR SUB RAMANI DATED 10.1.2020, WE ARE COMPLETELY AGREED WITH THIS PROPOSITION, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD BY THE BENCH AS FO LLOWS: WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE ID. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE BANGALORE BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF /TO(/T), WARD 1(1), BANGALORE V. ARSHIA BASITH. IT(IT)A NO.2768/BANG/2017 AY 2014-15, ORDER DATED 14.8.2018 WHEREIN THIS TRIBUNAL HELD THAT ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO BE NEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54/54F OF THE ACT ON THE PROPERTY PURCHASED OUTSIDE INDIA AND THAT THE AMENDMENT MADE TO SECTION 54F OF THE ACT BY THE FIN ANCE ACT, 2014 W.E.F. 2015 IS APPLICABLE ONLY PROSPECTIVELY FROM AY 2015- 16 AND NOT TO EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. BY THE SAID AMENDMENT, THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 54F(1) WERE AMENDED WHEREBY IT WAS LAID DOWN THAT THE NEW ASSET PURCHASED OR CONSTRUCTED BY UTILISING THE CAPITAL GAIN MUST BE I N INDIA. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE O F ACIT V. JAI KUMAR GUPTA HUF, ITA NO.5303/MUM/2017 AY 2013-14, ORDER D ATED 28.2.2019 AND DECISION OF ITAT BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF MRS. SUMA V. ITO, ITA NO.568/BANG/2018 FOR AY 2006-07, ORDER DATED 20.7.2 018. IT WAS HELD THAT DEDUCTION U/S. 54F CAN BE CONSIDERED AND ALLOWED EV EN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IT(IT)A NO.879/BANG/2019 SRI JOSEPH K ZACHARIAH, BANGALORE PAGE 6 OF 9 HAS MADE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION ONLY U/S. 54 OF THE AC T PROVIDED THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 54F ARE SATISFIED. 8. THE ID. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE SHOULD BE DIREC TED TO BE EXAMINED BY THE AO AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION CITED BY THE ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE HAVE GIVEN A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IN THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF JAI KUMAR G UPTA HUF (SUPRA) ON IDENTICAL FACTS THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A CLAIM FOR D EDUCTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT INSTEAD OF 54F OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT T HE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54F SHOULD BE EXAMINED. IN THE CASE OF ARSHIA BASITH (SUPRA) THE BANGALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT EVEN IN RESPECT OF PR OPERTY PURCHASED WHICH IS LOCATED OUTSIDE INDIA. THE FOLLOWING WERE THE RELEV ANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL:- '3. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORI TIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESS MENT YEAR IN THIS APPEAL IS 2014-15 AND THE PROVISION IN SECTION 54F COMES W .E.F. 01.04.2015 ACCORDING TO WHICH IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT THE RESIDE NTIAL HOUSE IS TO BE ACQUIRED ONLY IN INDIA MEANING THEREBY BEFORE THIS AMENDMENT IT WAS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54F CAN BE GIVEN TO RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ACQUIRED IN INDIA OR ABROAD. THIS ISSUE WAS E XAMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. IQBAL JAFAR (SUPRA ) WHICH WAS AUTHORED BY ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS BENCH AND IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT BEFORE THE AMENDMENTS, THE BENEFIT CAN ALSO BE GIVE N TO THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ACQUIRED IN ABROAD. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE: '9. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A C AREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, FIND THAT IT H AS BEEN REPEATEDLY HELD BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT AND VARIOUS HIGH COU RTS THAT CARDINAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE STATUTE MUST BE CONSTRUED ACCORDING TO ITS PLAIN LANGUAGE AND NEITHER SHOULD ANYTHING B E ADDED NOR SUBTRACTED THEREFROM UNLESS THERE ARE ADEQUATE GROU NDS TO JUSTIFY THE INFERENCE THAT THE LEGISLATURE CLEARLY SO INTENDED. IT IS ALSO WELL SETTLED THAT IN A TAXING STATUTE ONE HAS TO LOOK MERELY AT WHAT IS CLEARLY STATED THE MEANING AND EXTENT OF THE STATUTE MUST BE COLLE CTED FROM THE PLAIN AND UNAMBIGUOUS EXPRESSION USED THEREIN, RATHER THA N FROM ANY NOTIONS WHICH MAY BE ENTERTAINED BY THE COURT AS TO WHAT IS JUST OR EXPEDIENT. 10. IN THE CASE OF TV. SUNDARAM IYENGAR & SONS (P.) LTD . (SUPRA), THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT IF THE LANGUAGE OF THE STA TUTE IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS, THE COURT CANNOT DISCARD THE PLAIN MEA NING, EVEN IF IT LEADS TO AN INJUSTICE. 11. AGAIN IN THE CASE OF SMT. TARULATA SHYAM V. CIT (SU PRA), IT WAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR IMPORTING INTO THE STATUTE WORDS WHICH IT(IT)A NO.879/BANG/2019 SRI JOSEPH K ZACHARIAH, BANGALORE PAGE 7 OF 9 ARE NOT THERE. SUCH IMPORTATION WOULD BE, NOT TO CO NSTRUE, BUT TO AMEND THE STATUTE. EVEN IF THERE BE A CASUS OMISSUS , THE DEFECT CAN BE REMEDIED ONLY BY LEGISLATION AND NOT BY JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION. 12. FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF SODRA DEVI (SUPRA), IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT THAT UNLESS THERE IS AN AMBIGUIT Y, IT WOULD NOT BE OPEN TO THE COURT TO DEPART FROM THE NORMAL RULE OF CONSTRUCTION WHICH IS THAT THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE SHOU LD BE PRIMARILY TO GATHER FROM THE WORDS WHICH ARE USED. IT IS ONLY WH EN THE WORDS USED ARE AMBIGUOUS THAT THEY WOULD STAND TO BE EXAM INED AND CONSIDERED ON SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONSTIT UTIONALLY PROPOSED PRACTICES. 13. WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VINAY MISHRA (SUPRA), IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THA T THE WORDS 'IN INDIA; CANNOT BE READ INTO SECTION 54F WHEN PARLIAM ENT IN ITS LEGISLATIVE WISDOM HAS DELIBERATELY NOT USED THE WO RDS 'IN INDIA' IN SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL ACCORDINGLY HE LD THAT ASSESSEE 'S CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT SHALL BE ALLOWED SINCE ALL CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THIS SECTION ARE SATISFIED FOR AVAILING THE SAID EXEMPTION, THOUGH HE HAS ACQUIRED HOUSE PROPERTY IN U.S.A. 14. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF MRS. PREMA P. SHAH (S UPRA), THE TRIBUNAL HAS AGAIN HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTIT LED TO THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, WHICH DOES NOT EXCLUDE THE RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM PROPERTY PURCHASED IN A FOREIGN C OUNTRY, IF ALL OTHER CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE SECTION ARE SATIS FIED, MERELY BECAUSE THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED WAS IN A FOREIGN COUN TRY. 15. AGAIN IN THE CASE OF DR. GIRISH M SHAH (S UPRA), THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A VIEW BY HOLDING T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT FOR OF HOUSE PROPERTY OUTSIDE INDIA I.E. IN CANADA. 16. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND THE ORDER OF THE ID. CIT(A), WE FIND PT IN THE CASE OF LEENA J. SHAH V. ASSTS. (2006) 6 SOT 72 I (AHD.), THE TRIBUN AL HAS TAKEN A T VIEW THAT THE WORDS 'IN INDIA' CANNOT BE INSERTED I N SECTION 54F OF THE ACT AND AS PER PLAIN OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT, THE SALE PROCEEDS OF CAPITAL ASSET SHALL BE INVESTED IN RESIDENTIAL H OUSE OR OUTSIDE INDIA. WE, ACCORDINGLY, FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF T HE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE V. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD [1973J 88 ITR 192, HOLD THAT THE VIEW FAVOURABLE TO THE ASSESSEE TAKEN OUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD BE FOLLOWED AND ACCORDINGLY FOLLOWI NG THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UN DER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY I N THE ORDER OF THE ID. CIT(A), WHO HAS RIGHTLY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE I N THE LIGHT OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN A NUMBER OF CASE S. ACCORDINGLY, IT(IT)A NO.879/BANG/2019 SRI JOSEPH K ZACHARIAH, BANGALORE PAGE 8 OF 9 THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED AND THE AP PEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED.' 4. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A VIEW IN SIMILAR SET OF FACTS, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS APPEA L. ACCORDINGLY, FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE SAME.' 10. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED SHOULD BE EXAMINED IN THE PARAMETERS OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION CITED BEFORE US. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO APPLY THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE AFORESAID DECISION AND ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEDUC TION OF ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, AFTER AFFORDING ASSESSEE O PPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 7. HOWEVER, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE SHALL FU RNISH NECESSARY EVIDENCES OF CONSTRUCTION OR PURCHASE OF NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN CHICAGO, USA. THE A.O. HAS TO EXAMINE THE SAME AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE O RDER CITED (SUPRA). WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE J UDGEMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K. RAMA CHANDRA RAO (SUPRA). WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE ISSUE TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD DEC, 2020. SD/- (N.V. VASUDEVAN ) VICE PRESIDENT SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED 23 RD DEC, 2020. VG/SPS IT(IT)A NO.879/BANG/2019 SRI JOSEPH K ZACHARIAH, BANGALORE PAGE 9 OF 9 COPY TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.