Bharat Eknath Kanpile, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 8, Pune

ITA 320/PUN/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Bharat Eknath Kanpile, the appellant, contesting the reassessment proceedings and subsequent additions made by the DCIT, Circle-8, Pune, for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The primary issues pertained to the validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the additions made concerning alleged on-money receipts and incorrect stamp duty valuations under section 50C. The Tribunal noted the absence of a mandatory reference to the DVO for valuation under section 50C, which is required even if the assessee does not object during the lower proceedings, as per the precedent set in Sunil Kumar Agrawal Vs. CIT.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 134133 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-11-2022
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Sunil Kumar Agrawal Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” Ɋायपीठ पुणे मŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.D.PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं. / ITA No.320/PUN/2018 िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Bharat Eknath Kanpile, C/o.Success Mall, Pune Nashik Highway, Waki, Tal. Khed, Dist. Pune – 410501. PAN: ABFPK 3450 N Vs . The DCIT, Circle-8, Pune. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Smt. Deepa Khare – AR Revenue by Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – DR Date of hearing 01/12/2022 Date of pronouncement 30/12/2022 आदेश/ ORDER Per S.S.Godara, JM: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-6, Pune’s order in case no.PN/CIT(A)-V/DCIT Cir-8/314/2014-15 dated 31.10.2017, in proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: ITA No.320/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2008-09 Bharat Eknath Kanpile [A] 2 “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 being initiated in absence of material showing escapement of income in the hands of the appellant is void and may kindly be cancelled. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.16,01,000/- in respect of Gat no.357/18 as cash consideration received purely on the basis of statement of Shri V K Sharma and without appreciating the facts and evidences led in support of the appellant. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.34,51,357/- u/s 50C since there was some mistake committed by the stamp duty valuation authorities and hence, the amount of Rs 5 lacs offered by the The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in adopting the stamp duty valuation without referring the valuation to the valuation officer. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in adopting the stamp duty valuation without referring the valuation to the valuation officer. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or substitute any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. Learned counsel has fair enough in not pressing for the assessee’s 1 st and 5 th substantive grounds. Rejected accordingly. 4. Next come the assessee’s 2 nd to 4 th substantive grounds seeking to reverse both the lower authorities action adding the alleged on- money receipts of Rs.16.01 lakhs followed by section 50C addition ITA No.320/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2008-09 Bharat Eknath Kanpile [A] 3 of Rs.34,51,357/-; respectively. Suffice to say, we note with the able assistance of both the learned representatives that no reference under section 50C had been made to the DVO either in the course of assessment or in the lower appellate proceedings. Case law Sunil KUma Agrawal Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal) holds such a reference to be mandatory even if the concerned assessee fails to raise his objections before the lower authorities. 5. We thus restore the assessee’s 3 rd and 4 th substantive grounds back to the Assessing Officer for his appropriate adjudication as per law in very terms. We stay back on assessee’s on-money addition issue and are of the opinion that the same must also follow the suit once the Assessing Office is yet to finalise the correct amount of capital gain in question. We further make it clear that it shall be the assessee’s risk and responsibly only to produce all the corresponding sale agreement and evidence before the Assessing Officer so as to arrive at the correct sale price of the capital asset(s) in issue. It is further clarified that in case in on-money addition is finally made in assessee’s hands, the same shall be given credit in the section 50C proceedings in the final computation. These 2 nd to 4 th substantive grounds raised at the assessee’s behest are accepted for statistical purpose therefore. ITA No.320/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2008-09 Bharat Eknath Kanpile [A] 4 6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30 th December, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (G.D.PADMAHSHALI) (S.S.GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 30 th Dec, 2022/ SGR* आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.