EKNATH DHONDIBA KURADE, PUNE V. ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 574/PUN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1575 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.574/PUN./2024 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Shri Eknath Dhondiba Kurade, 691, Narayan Peth, Laxmi Road, PUNE. PIN – 411 030. PAN ABXPK0830A Maharashtra. vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12, 309, 3 rd Floor, Aaykar Sadhan, Bodhi Towers, Salisbury Park, Gultekdi, PUNE – 411 037. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pratik Sandbhor For Revenue : Shri Arvind Desai Date of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 19.06.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-2018, arise against the Addl./JCIT-(A)-2, Coimbatore’s Din and Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1060142340 (1), dated 25.01.2024, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 2. It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed in the instant appeal challenges correctness of the learned lower authorities action 2 ITA.No.574/PUN./2024 making sec.43CA addition of Rs.7,42,858/- representing difference between actual sale price and stamp price of the corresponding residential units forming part of the stock-in- trade, sold/transferred in the relevant previous year. 3. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned Assessing Officer’s impugned discussion in paragraphs5 to 5.8 has itself prepared a chart of assessee’s corresponding residential units sold/transferred in the relevant previous year. The assessee has also filed the corresponding chart at page-41 of his paper book whose details have nowhere been called in question at the Revenue’s behest. A perusal of this clinching chart reveals that in none of the 13 residential units in question; the price difference between actual one vis-à-vis the stamp valuation nowhere exceeded 10% going by sec.43CA(1) first proviso of the Act. 4. Learned DR vehemently argued that this tolerance margin of 10% has substituted the earlier 5% range by the Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 which carries only prospective effect. 5. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant arguments in light of this tribunal’s decision in C. Maria Fernandes vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum.) having rejected the very stand in sec.50C addition which is indeed para materia to sec.43CA of the Act since the only difference is that 3 ITA.No.574/PUN./2024 the former gets invoked in case of capital asset whereas sec.43CA is attracted when the corresponding asset forms part of the stock-in-trade. We thus reject the Revenue’s vehement arguments in very terms to delete the impugned addition of Rs.7,42,858/- in very terms. No other ground or argument has been pressed before us. 6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19.06.2024. Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 19 th June, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Coimbatore 4. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 5. D.R. ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.