ITO 24(2)(1), MUMBAI V. NEETA K KENY, MUMBAI

ITA 8604/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3046 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINITA MENON
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) ITA NO. 8604/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 THE ITO - 24(2)(1), ROOM NO. 606, 6 TH FLOOR, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI- 400051. VS. MRS. NEETA K. KENY, 702-B, NESTLE APARTMENT, OPP. TOYOTA SHOWROOM, NEW LINK ROAD, MALAD (W), MUMBAI- 400064. PAN- AACPK0153A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. VINITA MENON RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING: 21/06/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21/06/2016 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAI NST ORDER DATED 11/10/2010 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(APPEALS)-34, MUMBAI FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER O N FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO TAKE THE VA LVE OF LAND UNDER TRANSFER AS RS. 50,00,000/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING TH E FACT THAT SINCE THE PROPERTY HAS NOT COME INTO EXISTENCE ON THE DAT E OF TRANSFER THE BEST METHOD TO CALCULATE THE VALUE OF PROPERTY BEIN G EXCHANGED I.E. 2 ITA NO. 8604/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 TWO FLATS IN THIS CASE IS TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF THESE FLATS AS PER STAMP DUTY FOR FLAT PREVAILING AT THAT TIME AS HELD BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF PARESH K. BHARMANI ITA NO. 3912 /M/08 ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. GEORGE HENDERSON & CO (66 ITR 622 SC). 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE POINTED OUT THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASE IS BELOW RS.10,00,000/- AS THE QUANTUM IN DISPUTE IS RS. 27,24,000/- HENCE, AS PER THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 21 OF 2015, DATED 10/12/2015, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 4. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN APPEAL DOES NOT FALL UNDER ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS SPECIFIED IN PARA 8 OF THE CIRCULAR. SIN CE, IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY CLARIFIED IN THE CIRCULAR AFORESAID THAT THE INSTRU CTION WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY TO ALL THE PENDING APPEALS; THE PRESENT APPEAL FILE D BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE SAME IN LIMINE . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COUR T ON 21 TH JUNE, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( B.R.BASKARAN ) (RAM LAL NEGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED: 21/06/2016 3 ITA NO. 8604/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. / CIT 5. !' , $ !'% , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. &' ( / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ) //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI PRAMILA