TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1942
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r grounds, it was submitted, are supportive of the said ground and can be treated as arguments. For ready reference the grounds are reproduced hereunder : i) That the order passed u/s 143(3) r/w Sec 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is against the law and facts on the file in as much as the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. AO in refusing the exemption claimed by the appellant u/s 54 of the Act ibid on the sole ground that the appellant had purchased/constructed a residential property in foreign country. ii) The furthermore, the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to notice the facts of the case that the appellant had sold a residential house for a sum of Rs. 320.00 lacs in A.Y 2008-09 and further reinvested its long term c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ma Vs ACIT in ITA 483/2006 dated 14/06/2016 submitted that the controversy has been set at rest by virtue of the said decision as the Court in categorical terms has held that investment in residential house property outside India before the amendment to section 54F made by Finance Act,2014 which has come into effect from 01/04/2015 will be entitled for deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act,1961. Inviting attention to paragraph 2 of the assessment order, it was submitted that the AO had rejected the claim on the reasoning that the ITAT had held that investment outside India was not allowable u/s 54F by relying upon Leena J. Shah decision reported in 6 SOT 721 (AHD) which decision has been upset by the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y relying upon the fact that the investment was made in UK and not in India. Accordingly the reliance placed upon the assessee on the decision of the ITAT in the case of Mrs Prema P Shah versus ITO in ITA 02/07/2006/Mum/1997 dated 29.11.2005 was held to be not relevant and the decision of the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Leena J. Shah was held to be applicable. The Hon'ble High Court has set the controversy at rest and the decision of the ITAT has not been approved. The year under consideration in the facts of the present case being 2008-09 assessment year, we find that the issue is no longer res integra and thus cannot be said to be any longer covered in favour of the revenue. For ready reference, we extract para 9 of the decision o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es no room for any doubt that the assessee should restrict her investment within India or outside India. The only condition was that the assessee should invest in a residential house. The Tribunal has wrongly interpreted section 54F of the Income-tax Act by holding that the assessee should purchase the residential house situated in India. Prior to amendment to section 54F of the Act, the only condition stipulated was investment in a residential house. When the section 54F of the Income-tax Act was clear and unambiguous, there is no scope for importing into the statute the words which are not there. Such importation would be not to construe but to amend the statute. If there is any defect in the Act, it can be remedied only by the legislatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er that the same may be followed. A perusal of the said order further brings out the fact that the coordinate Bench sitting at Mumbai took cognizance of an earlier order also of the Mumbai Bench in the case of IT0 versus Nishant Lalit Jadhav in ITA 68 83/Mum/2014 which also relied on the aforesaid decision. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts and circumstance of the present case which have been set out herein above considering the position of law as also discussed in detail in the earlier portion of this order, we find that in the peculiar facts of the present case the claim of the assessee has to be allowed. It is seen that the amendment by the Finance Act of 2014 in section 54F comes into effect only from 01/04/2015. Thus from the said dat....