VINOD KANAYALAL MANWANI,NASHIK V. ACIT CIRCLE 1, NASHIK

MA 340/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves three assessees, Mr. Vinod Kanayalal Manwani, Mr. Kanyalal Chetandas Manwani, and Mr. Dinesh Kanyalal Manwani, who filed miscellaneous applications seeking to recall or rectify a common order of the Tribunal dated 08.02.2023. This original order partly allowed the Revenue's contentions regarding the addition of stamp value under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2016-17. The assessees contended that the Tribunal's order contained an apparent mistake in adopting the stamp value of the capital asset. However, the Tribunal found no apparent mistake and dismissed the applications, affirming the higher stamp value assessed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471124 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Next Hearing Date: 06-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2024
• Other Referred Cases: [2008] 305 ITR 277 (SC) ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., [1993] 203 ITR 497 (Bom.) CIT vs. Ramesh Electric and Trading Co.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P. MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: SANKET M. JOSHI
• Keywords: Capital asset

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.Nos.340, 341 & 342/PUN./2023 Arising out of I.T.A.Nos.14, 15 & 16/PUN./2020 - Assessment Year 2016-2017 Mr. Vinod Kanayalal Manwani, Mr. Kanyalal Chetandas Manwani, Mr. Dinesh Kanyalal Manwani, All are r/o.7/A, Holaram Colony, Sadhu Vaswani Road, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422 002 Maharashtra. PAN AAPPM8258D PAN AEGPM7301B PAN AAPPM8259C vs. The DCIT, Circle-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Nashik. Maharashtra. PIN – 422 002 (Applicants) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sanket M. Joshi For Revenue : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of Hearing : 06.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 14.10.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. These three assessees’ as many instant miscellaneous applications M.A.Nos.340, 341 and 342/PUN./2023, for assessment year 2016-17, filed u/sec.254(2) of the Act seek to recall/rectify the tribunal’s common order dated 08.02.2023 2 M.A.Nos.340, 341 & 342/PUN./2023 partly allowing the Revenue’s contentions in the corresponding main appeals I.T.A.Nos.14, 15 & 16/PUN./2020 for statistical purposes. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 2. Learned counsel vehemently submits during the course of hearing that our impugned common order suffers from an apparent mistake on record deciding the sole issue herein of sec.56(2)(vii)(b) addition(s) in question thereby adopting the stamp value of the relevant capital asset at Rs.19.86 crores than that adopted/assessed at Rs.63.88 lakhs only. Mr. Joshi seeks to buttress the point that once the stamp authority(ies) has accepted the assessee’s case that they had executed it’s corresponding agreement on 12.08.1997; the impugned addition(s) or for that; the stamp value chargeable in the relevant previous year 2015-16, has to be as per the actual amount only. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s foregoing arguments and find no merit therein once our impugned discussion from paragraphs 5 to 7 has rejected the plea of 1997 agreement itself in principle. We further wish to reiterate that purpose of sec.254(2) is only to rectify the apparent 3 M.A.Nos.340, 341 & 342/PUN./2023 mistakes on record than adopting long drawn process of roving enquiries in light of [2008] 305 ITR 277 (SC) ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.; [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd.; and [1993] 203 ITR 497 (Bom.) CIT vs. Ramesh Electric and Trading Co. that our impugned order dated 08.02.2023 does not suffer from any apparent mistake and therefore, these three assessees’ instant miscellaneous applications M.A.Nos.340, 341 & 342/PUN./2023 stands rejected in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 4. These three assessees’ as many miscellaneous applications M.A.Nos.340, 341 & 342/PUN./2023 are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on 14.10.2024. Sd/- Sd/- [INTURI RAMA RAO] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 14th October, 2024 VBP/- 4 M.A.Nos.340, 341 & 342/PUN./2023 Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune. "