(Late) Shri. Hukumchand Chunilal Bagmar, L/h Rajendra H. Bagmar, Nashik V. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Nashik

ITA 1869/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3025 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUN E (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM . / ITA NO.1869/PUN/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 (LATE) SHRI HUKUMCHAND CHUNILAL BAGMAR L/H RAJENDRA HUKUMCHAND BAGMAR, 778, KUNTE LANE, NASHIK, MAHARASHTRA. PAN : ABRPB9474D. . / APPELLANT V/S THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, NASHIK. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE. REVENUE BY : SHRI DEEPAK GARG. / DATE OF HEARING : 11.06.2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.06.2021 / ORDER PER S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.11.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 1, NASHIK FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. WE FIND NO REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NO R ANY APPLICATION FILED SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. THE ASSESSEE CALLED ABSENT AND SET EX-PARTE. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO HEAR THE LD. D.R. AND PASS ORDE R BASING ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 2 3. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AMONGST WHICH THE ONLY ISSUE REMAINS FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS AS TO WHETHER THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IS JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE JURIS DICTION UNDER SEC.263 OF THE ACT. 4. HEARD THE LD. D.R. AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 5. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E-TAX, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED 30% SHARE IN THREE COMMERCIAL NON-A GRICULTURAL PLOTS HAVING TOTAL AREA OF 4,200 SQ.MTRS IN F.Y. 2013-14 (A.Y. 2014 -15) FOR RS.1.20 CRORES AND RS.20 LACS FOR STAMP DUTY. THEREFORE, ACCORD ING TO HIM, THE COST OF SUCH ACQUISITION INCLUDING THE STAMP DUTY IS RS.1.40 CROR ES. FURTHER, HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD HIS 30% SHARE ADMEASU RING 3,310 SQ.MTRS ONLY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.2.06 CRORES BUT CLAIMED PURC HASE COST OF RS.1.40 CRORES OF THREE PLOTS AND CLAIMED CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.32,09,309/-. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX, SUCH LOSS IS NOT ALLOWABLE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOW N THE COST OF ACQUISITION ON ENTIRE THREE PLOTS WRONGLY BUT IN ACTUAL FAC T, THE ASSESSEE SOLD HIS 30% SHARE IN THREE COMMERCIAL PLOTS ADMEASURING 3,310 SQ. MTRS ONLY AS AGAINST 4.200 SQ.MTRS. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE TAXED AN AMOUNT OF RS.27,98,816/- ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND THE WORKING OF WHICH, THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX DISCUSSED THE SAME IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT PAGE NO.2 . 6. THE LD. D.R. SHRI DEEPAK GARG SUBMITS THAT ASSESSING O FFICER DID NOT APPLY HIS MIND AT ALL ON THIS WORKING, WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY DISCUSSION, HE PASSED AN ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ARGUED THAT THE LEAR NED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX RIGHTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 3 7. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 17.06.2016 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH IS ON RECORD, DETERMINED THE SAME A MOUNT AS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN WE NOTE THAT NO DISC USSION OR WHATSOEVER MADE WITH REGARD TO THE PURCHASE OF PLOT, SELLING OF THE SA ID PLOT AND COST OF ACQUISITION ETC., TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPA L LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX IN INVOKING THE JURISDICTION UNDER SEC.263 OF THE ACT IN QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 17.06.2016 TREATING THE SAME AS ERRONEOUS AND PR EJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND THUS THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED P RINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IS JUSTIFIED AND THUS, THE GROUNDS RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 17 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021. SD/- SD/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 17 TH JUNE, 2021. YAMINI / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE PR.CIT-1, PUNE. 4. , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 5. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE.