HARISH PAHALAJMAL KHATRI, HUF, AMRAVATI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AMRAVATI

ITA 384/NAG/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8128 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHAY Y. MARATHE
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C; 56(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :NAGPUR [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.384/NAG./2022 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2015-2016 Harish Pahalajmal Khatri HUF, C/o Saraswati Hosiery, Busyland Complex, Nandgaon Peth, Amravati – 444 901 PAN AADHH8136F vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2, Amravati (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri R.B. Atal For Revenue : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing : 22.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26.03.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : 1. This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1045633309(1), dated 19.09.2022, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It emerges at outset that there is hardly any need to delve with the relevant factual matrix at length so far as the assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenging correctness of both the lower authorities action making section 56(2) (vii)(b)(ii) addition of Rs.2,22,950/- is concerned. This is for the precise reason that the actual purchase price of the relevant capital asset is 2 ITA.No.384/NAG./2022 Harish Pahalajmal Khatri, HUF, A.Y. 2015-16 Rs.1,10,72,000/- having inter alia having stamp value of Rs.1,56,37,000/- and the DVO’s valuation thereof has come to Rs.1,19,63,800/-; respectively. That been the case, the difference between actual purchase price and DVO’s valuation comes to the less than the statutory tolerance limit of 10% as per section 50C 3rd proviso applicable mutatis mutandis to S.56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) by virtue of 3 rd proviso thereof. 3. Learned departmental representative vehemently argued that the above tolerance margin; enhanced from 5% to 10%, by the Finance Act, 2020 with effect from 01.04.2021 carries prospective effect only. This Tribunal in C. Maria Fernandes V/s. ITO (2021)187 ITD 738 (Mum.) has already rejected the Revenue’s very stand thereby holding that the same carries retrospective effect being curative in nature. I accept the assessee’s forgoing sole substantive ground in very terms. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26.03.2024. Sd/- SSdd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 26 th March, 2024 A Ashwini 3 ITA.No.384/NAG./2022 Harish Pahalajmal Khatri, HUF, A.Y. 2015-16 Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.