Shri Shailesh Mahendra Parekh, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-11, Ahmedabad

MA 110/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2918 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 01-09-2022
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Fair market value; Capital Gains
• Section: 254(2); 48

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठअहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ ‘SMC’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद।अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, JUDICIAL MEMBER Misc.Application No.110/Ahd/2018 IN ITA No.1833/Ahd/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Shailesh M. Parikh Paritosh Krishna Society Ellisbridge Ahmedabad. PAN : AAVPP 9725 A Vs. DCIT, Cir.12 Ahmedabad. 0 अपीलाथ / (Appellant) यथ /(Respondent) Assessee by : Ms.Kinjal Shah, CA Revenue by : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR स ु नवाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing : 02/09/2022 घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement: 07/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Present Misc. Application is filed by the assessee under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) seeking recall of order of the ITAT passed in ITA No.1833/Ahd/2012 dated 11.7.2017 by pointing out certain mistake apparent from the record which has crept in the order while considering the case of the assessee. The assessee accordingly is seeking reconsideration of the order and rectification of the impugned order. 2. The solitary ground/argument of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee before us for rectification of the impugned order was that MA No.110/Ahd/2018 2 certain judgments of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court cited by the counsel for the assessee on the issue that actual consideration received for sale of shares cannot be substituted with their fair market value (FMV) for the purpose of computing capital gain as per section 48 of the Act, had not been considered by the ITAT while adjudicating the issue. It was pointed out that the issue before the ITAT was calculation of capital gains earned on sale of shares wherein the Revenue had substituted the actual sale consideration with the FMV of the shares. The ld.counsel for the assessee referred to para 9.2 of the impugned ITAT order pointing out the decisions referred to therein in support of its above contentions. 3. The ld.DR on the other hand drew our attention to 16.4 of the order pointing out that ITAT had taken note of the said decisions and had clearly held that the said decisions did not apply to the facts of the present case. He pointed out from the said para that while deciding the case, the ITAT had gone into the details and submissions made by both the parties including the case laws cited at Bar, and on the merit of which the impugned order running over 25 pages was passed. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be said to be erroneous so as to attract the provision of section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. 4. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee was unable to controvert the above. 5. We have heard both the parties and have also gone through the relevant paras of the order of the ITAT referred to before us by both the parties. We do not find any merit in the present miscellaneous application since the contention of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that decisions cited by the assessee in support of its MA No.110/Ahd/2018 3 contention that actual consideration cannot be substituted with FMV of shares have not been dealt with by the ITAT while adjudicating the issue has been demonstrated by the Ld.DR to be incorrect and the same has also been noted by us. 6. In view of the above we are of the view that there is no apparent mistake as pointed out by the ld.counsel for the assessee in the order of the ITAT having dealt with the case laws referred to by the assessee on the issue of substitution of the actual consideration received by the assessee with the FMV of shares while computing the capital gains earned thereon. 7. No other pleading or argument having been made by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee, we dismiss the present Miscellaneous application finding no mistake in the order of the ITAT as alleged by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee. 7. In the result, Misc. Application of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 7 th September, 2022 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad, dated 07/09/2022 vk*