Shri Rajesh Srichand Uttamani , Nagpur V. A.CIT, Circle-4, Nagpur

ITA 91/NAG/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Rajesh Srichand Uttamani, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)-1, Nagpur, which upheld the addition of long-term capital gains of Rs.10,47,898 for the assessment year 2013-2014. The addition was made under section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertains to the consideration received on the transfer of capital assets. The Tribunal noted that the transfers made by the assessee did not exceed a 10% difference in value, as required by the third proviso to section 50C(1), which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2016, but applied retrospectively. The Tribunal, referencing decisions in similar cases, accepted the assessee's argument and allowed the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 136603 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-07-2020
• Other Referred Cases: Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. ACIT [2016] 161 ITD 627 (Ahd.), Maria Fernandez Cheryl vs. ITO (International Taxation) [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum. - Tribu.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAUMUDI PATIL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Capital Gains

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : PUNE BENCHES : PUNE] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.91/NAG./2020 Assessment Year 2013-2014 Shri Rajesh Srichand Uttamani, House No.299, Opp. Multani Temple, Itwari, Nagpur – 440 002. Maharashtra. PAN AACPU4803B vs. The ACIT, Circle-4, Room No.301, 3 rd Floor, Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Nagpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Dr. Kaumudi Patil, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 20.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013- 2014, arises against the CIT(A)-1, Nagpur’s Order No.CIT(A)-1/ 219/2015-16, dated 05.03.2020, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. We have noticed that there is a delay of 59 days in filing the appeal before the tribunal. The Assessee has placed 2 I.T.A.No.91/NAG./2020 on record a condonation petition/affidavit dated 24.06.2020 inter alia stating therein that the same is attributable to Covid- 2019 period and submitted that the delay be condoned as per hon’ble apex court’s directions in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 and 421 ITR 314 (SC), excluding the covid- 19 pandemic outbreak period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for all intents and purposes under the limitation law. We, therefore, condone the delay of 59 days and proceed to decide the appeal on merits, after hearing the Learned DR. 3. We now advert to the assessee’s sole substantive issue of sec.50C addition of long term capital gains amounting to Rs.10,47,898/- made in the course of assessment herein dated 21.08.2015 as upheld in the CIT(A)'s order. It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the assessee had sold/transferred the following capital assets in the relevant previous year as per the Assessing Officer’s assessment at page-2 para-3 as under : 3 I.T.A.No.91/NAG./2020 4. The Revenue could hardly dispute that none of the foregoing transfer(s) executed at the assessee’s behest involved more than 10% difference as per sec.50C in light of the 3 rd proviso to sub-sec.(1) thereof. Ms. Patil vehemently argued at this stage that neither of the three statutory proviso(s) in sec.50C(1) of the Act inserted in Finance Act, 2016 onwards covers the assessee’s case as we are in assessment year 2013- 2014 only. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant arguments in light of Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. ACIT [2016] 161 ITD 627 (Ahd.) and Maria Fernandez Cheryl vs. ITO (International Taxation) [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum.–Tribu.) holding that the legislature has inserted [1 st and 2 nd proviso(s) and [3 rd proviso] respectively; to sec.50C(1) as curative measures which carry retrospective effect. We accordingly accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance challenging the learned lower authorities action making long term capital gains addition of Rs.10,47,898/- since falling within the tolerance margin of 10% u/sec.50C(1) (3 rd ) proviso of the Act in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.09.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 28 th September, 2023 VBP/- 4 I.T.A.No.91/NAG./2020 Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A)-1, Nagpur. 4. The PCIT concerned, Nagpur. 5. D.R. ITAT, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. 6. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune. S.No. Details Date 1 Draft dictated on 25.09.2023 Sr.PS 2 Draft placed before author 26.09.2023 Sr.PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Author .09.2023 J.M. 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member .09.2023 A.M. 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS .09.2023 Sr.PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on .09.2023 Sr.PS 7 Date of uploading of Order .09.2023 Sr.PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk .09.2023 Sr.PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order