BHARAT JALANDAR PATOLE, KOLHAPUR V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), KOLHAPUR

ITA 394/PUN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7197 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH MEHTA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.394/PUN./2024 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2011-2012 Mr. Bharat Jalandar Patole, 841, E-Ward, New Palace Road, Patole Mala, KOLHAPUR - 416 003. Maharashtra. PAN AOFPP0474E vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Indumati Road, Tarabai Park, KOLHAPUR. Maharashtra. PIN – 416 003. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pramod S. Shingte For Revenue : Shri Manish Mehta Date of Hearing : 22.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 15.05.2024 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1061124934(1), dated 19.02.2024, involving proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s instant appeal raises first and foremost legal issue of applicability of Sec.55(a) amendment/substituted by way of Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012 that value of a capital asset claimed “is at variance with it’s fair market value”. It is in this statutory 2 ITA.No.394/PUN./2024 backdrop the assessee’s instant appeal and pleadings herein make it evident that his registered valuer’s report had claimed cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 @ Rs.240/- per sq. feet as reduced by the DVO’s valuation report to Rs.15/- per sq. metre. It is indeed very much relevant to pinpoint here that the earlier legislative expression used in sec.55A(a) would be applicable in case the FMV “is less than it’s fair value” up to 01.07.2012 before the foregoing amendment. That being the case, this tribunal is of the considered view that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in going by the DVO’s report not having considered the earlier statutory provision in above terms. Case law Pooja Prints (2014) 360 ITR 697 (Bom.) has already settled the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department that the foregoing statutory amendment does not carry any retrospective effect. I accordingly accept the assessee’s foregoing sole substantive ground in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 3. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 15.05.2024. Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 14 th May, 2024 VBP/- 3 ITA.No.394/PUN./2024 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.