2020 (9) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2013 on the following substantial question of law: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act in respect of investment made in the house property in USA? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that assessee is a Director of M/s Marketics Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd Bangalore. The assessee filed the return of income on 20.07.2009 for the Assessment year 2009-10 declaring total income of Rs. 1,53,44,940/- under the head income from salary, business, capital gains and other sources. The return of income was processed under Section 143(1) and the case of the assessee wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under Section 54 of the Act, as he had not purchased the house in India. It is also urged that if there is an ambiguity in an exemption provision, like Section 54 of the Act, the benefit should go in favor of the revenue and not in favor of the assessee. Alternatively, it is submitted that the amendment incorporated by Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015 is clarificatory in nature. In support of aforesaid submissions, reference has been made to Circular No.346 dated 30.06.1982 containing explanatory notes on the provisions of the Finance Act, the relevant extract of the Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014, extract of relevant provisions of Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014, notes on clauses and decision of the Supreme Court in 'COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015. The seminal issue, which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether an assessee was required to purchase a residential house within India for the purposes of claiming exemption under Section 54F of the Act. Before proceeding further, we deem it appropriate to take note of relevant extract of Section 54F(1) of the Act as it existed prior to and post amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2015: Prior to 01.04.2015: 54F (1) [Subject to the provisions of sub-Section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu Undivided Family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ell settled legal principles. The Supreme Court in 'GOVIND DAS vs. I.T.O', (1976) 1 SCC 906 held that unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation or impose a new liability otherwise than as regards matters of procedure. The general rule as stated by Halsbury in Vol. 36 of the Laws of England (3rd Edn.) and reiterated in several decisions of this Court as well as English courts is that all statutes other than those which are merely declaratory or which relate only to matters of procedure or of evidence are prima facie prospective and retrospective operation should not be ....