9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 1279 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 54F - investment in respect of residential property has been made by the assessee outside India - Held that - We find that except in the case of Leena J. Shah vs. ACIT 2005 (11) TMI 386 - ITAT AHMEDABAD the Tribunal has taken a consistent view that the words in India cannot be inserted in section 54F of the Act and as per plain reading of section 54F of the Act the sale proceeds of capital asset shall be invested in residential house in India or outside India. We accordingly following the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. 1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT hold that the view favourable to the assessee taken by various Benches of the Tribunal should be followed and accordingly following the same we hold that the assessee is entitled for exemption under section 54F. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) who has rightly adjudicated the issue in the light of the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in a number of cases. Accordingly the order of the ld. CIT(A) is confirmed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the exemption under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applies to investments made in residential properties outside India. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Exemption under Section 54F for Investments Outside India: The Revenue appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AO had disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee on the grounds that the investment in the residential property was made outside India. The assessee had sold land in Noida and invested the proceeds in a residential house in New Zealand, claiming exemption under section 54F. The CIT(A) examined the claim and concluded that the exemption under section 54F is not restricted to properties purchased within India. The CIT(A) based this conclusion on the plain language of the statute, which does not specifically state that the residential house must be acquired in India. The CIT(A) further relied on judicial pronouncements, including the Supreme Court's rulings, which emphasize that a taxing statute should be strictly construed and nothing should be read into it that is not explicitly stated. The CIT(A) referenced several cases to support this interpretation: - Federation Of Andhra Pradesh Chambers Of Commerce & Industry v. State Of Andhra Pradesh: It was held that a taxing statute must be strictly construed, and nothing can be read into it. - Anandji Haridas & Co. P. Ltd. v. Engineering Mazdoor Sangh: It was held that the intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the language of the statute itself. - American Hotel & Lodging Association Educational Institute vs. CBDT: The Supreme Court held that the words "in India" could not be read into a provision unless explicitly stated. The CIT(A) also cited the ITAT, Mumbai's decision in Mrs. Prema P. Shah v. Income-tax Officer, which held that section 54F does not exclude the right to claim exemption for property purchased in a foreign country if all other conditions are satisfied. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the submissions and the CIT(A)'s order, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. It reiterated that the courts have consistently held that the statute must be construed according to its plain language. The Tribunal cited various judgments, including: - CIT vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyyengar: If the language of the statute is clear, the court cannot discard the plain meaning. - Smt. Tarulata Shyam vs. CIT: There is no scope for importing words into the statute that are not there. - CIT vs. Sundaradevi: The intention of the legislature should be gathered from the words used unless there is ambiguity. The Tribunal also referenced its own decisions in cases like Vinay Mishra vs. ACIT and Dr. Girish M. Shah, where it was held that the words "in India" cannot be read into section 54F, and the exemption applies even if the property is acquired outside India. In conclusion, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 54F of the Act for the investment made in a residential property outside India. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed. Order Pronounced: The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 25.7.2014.
|
