IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2342/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Ravindra Upadrashta, IBM India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Embassy Golf Links, Officer, Intl. Taxation, Ring Road, Vs. Ward 2 (1), Koramangala Off Bangalore. Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 071. PAN: AAUPU8848A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Parimal L Rao, CA Revenue by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 26.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2019 ORDER Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by revenue and same is directed against order of ld. CIT(A)-12, Bangalore dated 19.06.2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. grounds raised by revenue are as under. 1. order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Bengaluru is contrary to law and facts of case. 2. learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Bengaluru ought to have considered fact that in view of statutory provisions of section 54F, residential house must be in India. 3. learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Bengaluru failed to appreciate fact that in view of settled ruling of interpretation of tax statute, residential house purchased/constructed must be in India and not outside India. 4. learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Bengaluru ITA No. 2342/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 3 failed to consider Memorandum explaining provisions in Finance Bill 1982 that exemption in section 54F is granted with view to encouraging house construction. This would naturally mean that house construction/purchase would be encouraged by provisions of this section in India and not outside India. 5. learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Bengaluru failed to consider fact that decision of Bangalore ITAT in case of Sri. Vinay Mishra v ACIT 30 Taxmann.com 341 has not yet become final and same is still pending before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. 6. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at time of hearing, it is prayed that order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Bengaluru may be cancelled and that of AO may be restored. 3. ld. DR of revenue supported assessment order whereas ld. AR of assessee supported order of ld. CIT(A). He also submitted that even as per ground no. 5 raised by revenue, this is stand taken by revenue that Tribunal order rendered in case of Sri. Vinay Mishra Vs. ACIT as reported in 30 taxmann.com 341 has not become final because appeal is filed by revenue before Hon'ble Karnataka High Court which is still pending. He submitted that this is not case of revenue that issue in dispute is not covered by this Tribunal order. He further submitted that this is also not case of revenue that Hon ble High Court has stayed operation of this Tribunal order and hence, appeal of revenue should be dismissed. 4. We have considered rival submissions. We find that in para 5.3 of his order, it is noted by ld. CIT(A) that assessee has purchased property in USA in Financial Year 2013-14 and amendment brought on statute book is applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2015 as per which it has been specified that for claiming deduction u/s. 54 of IT Act, residential house has to be purchased or constructed in India but in relevant period, such condition was not there that it should be in India. In same para, ld. CIT(A) has followed Tribunal order rendered in case of Sri. Vinay Mishra Vs. ACIT (supra) in which it is held by Tribunal that investment in residential house situated outside India is also eligible for exemption u/s. 54F of IT ITA No. 2342/Bang/2018 Page 3 of 3 Act. In view of these facts and legal position, we find no reason to interfere in order of ld. CIT(A). 5. In result, appeal filed by revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on date mentioned on caption page. Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated, 28th August, 2019. /MS/ Copy to: 1. Appellant 4. CIT(A) 2. Respondent 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 3. CIT 6. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. Income-tax Officer, Intl. Taxation, Ward 2 (1), Bangalore v. Ravindra Upadrashta