THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI vs. MANJIT SINGH BAIDWAN

ITA-59-2023 (O& 108 IN TH THE COMMI TAXATION)

MANJIT SIN CORAM: H

Present M

SANJEEV P

CM-5811-CII-

A appeal is allow CM-5812-CII-

E Main case 1. The pre wherein a s b ju L &M) HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( )-II, NEW DELHI Vs. NGH BAIDWAN **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SU **** Mrs. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standi for the appellant. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) -2023 Application for condonation of wed and accordingly delay is con -2023 Exemption application is allowed

esent appeal assails the order pas n the Tribunal has held as under: “5. On the other hand, t assessee supporting the order pas submitted that since the order pass based on the provisions of law and udgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat H Leena Jugal Kishore Shah Vs ACI AB AND HARYANA AT RH ITA-59-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.05.2024 (INTERNATIONAL . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondent NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA UDEEPTI SHARMA ing Counsel ) delay of 191 days in filing of ndoned. d as prayed for. ssed by the ITAT on 26.10.2021 : the Id. counsel for the ssed by the Id. CIT(A) sed by the Id. CIT(A) is d in accordance with the High Court in the case of IT 392 ITR 0018 (Guj.)

-1-

) 4 t t f

MOHIT GOYAL 2024.05.17 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-59-2023 (O& a S C th th m I 5 h a w 0 h fo in d J (s is S &M) and the Chandigarh Bench of the Shri Jaswinder Singh Lota Vs Chd/2015 AY 2008-09, there is no he Id. CIT(A) to interfere with th he rival submissions of the pa material on record including the c Id. counsel. The Id. CIT(A) has all 54 of the Act basically holding that have no retrospective application assessee pertains to the assessm whereas, the amendment was made 04. 2015. As pointed out by the Id. has decided the issue involved i following the judgement of the Hon n the case of Leena Jugal Kishore decision of the coordinate Bench Jaswinder Singh Lota Vs DCIT ( (supra). The coordinate Bench ha ssue in favour of the assessee in the Singh Lota Vs DCIT (supra) holding "4.1 The Ld. AR in the also filed copy of the order 3429/MUM/2016 in the case o versus ACIT. Relying on th submitted by the Ld. AR the dec of time wherein the ITAT has re Hon'ble Gujarat High Court a contrary decision, it was his p be followed. A perusal of the out the fact that the coordinate took cognizance of an earlier Bench in the case of ITO versu ITA 68 83/Mum/2014 which al decision. Accordingly, in t circumstance of the present cas herein above considering the Tribunal in the case of DCIT, ITA No. 802/ infirmity in the order of he same. We have heard arties and perused the cases relied upon by the lowed the deductions u/s t the amended provisions n as the claim of the ment year 2013 - 14, de applicable w. e. f. 01. counsel, the Id. CIT(A) in the present case by n'ble Gujarat High Court e Shah vs ACIT and the h in the case of Shri (International Taxation) as decided the identical e case of Shri Jaswinder g as under: - course of the hearing had dated 15.02.2018 in ITA of Ashok Keshavlal Tejuja he said decision it was cision being latest in point elied on the decision of the and in the absence of any prayer that the same may said order further brings e Bench sitting at Mumbai order also of the Mumbai us Nishant Lalit Jadhav in lso relied on the aforesaid the peculiar facts and se which have been set out e position of law as also

-2-

MOHIT GOYAL 2024.05.17 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-59-2023 (O& th th d w c A d d 2. We fin order p Kishore &M) discussed in detail in the earlie find that in the peculiar facts claim of the assessee has to b the amendment by the Financ 54F comes into effect only fro the said date the benefit of ded for investments made outside I denied as it can be said to be li residential house property m However, prior to the said d kicks in, there is no statutory make investments outside In property in order to get the b provided other conditions were assessment year under consi amendment of section 54F by law as on date stands that the to be allowed. Accordingly, the the assessing officer with a dir relief in accordance with law.”

nd that while passing the order, passed by the Gujarat High Co e Shah vs. ACIT 392 ITR 001 er portion of this order, we s of the present case the be allowed. It is seen that ce Act of 2014 in section m 01/04/2015. Thus, from duction under section 54F India undisputedly can be imited to the investment in made only within India. date when the amendment y bar for the taxpayer to ndia in residential house benefit of deductions 54F re fulfilled. Thus, since the ideration is prior to the the Finance Act, 2014 the claim of the assessee has e issue is restored back to rection to grant necessary ” Id. CIT(A) are based on Gujarat High Court and ch in the cases referred / any reason to interfere CIT(A). Hence, in our in the Revenue's appeal. gs of the Id. CIT(A) and al of the Revenue is the Tribunal has relied on the ourt in the case of Leena Jugal 8 (Guj.) and a decision of the

-3-

e l e MOHIT GOYAL 2024.05.17 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-59-2023 (O& ITAT No.802 3. The sh Section residen availab whethe retrospe 4. Since th Leena J Singh L any fur 5. Appeal 6. Pending

May 09, 2024 Mohit goyal 1. Whethe 2. Whethe &M) in the case of Shri Jaswinde 2/Chd/2015 AY 2008-09. hort issue involved is whether n 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1 ntial houses in India could depri le to him for purchasing prop er the provisions of Section 5 ective effect. he issue has already been decide Jugal Kishore Shah (supra) and Lota (supra) against the Revenue rther question of law to be exami l stands dismissed accordingly. g applications, if any, also stands

(SANJ ( 4 er speaking/reasoned?

Y er reportable?

Y er Singh Lota vs. DCIT, ITA the benefit of deduction under 1961 limiting to investments in ive a person having the benefit perties abroad. In other words, 54F of the Act would have a ed by the Gujarat High Court in by the ITAT in Shri Jaswinder e and we concur, we do not find ined by us afresh. s disposed of. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

-4-

A r n t , a n r d MOHIT GOYAL 2024.05.17 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document