Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's assessment for AY 2016-17 involved an addition under Section 56(vii)(b) due to a difference between property guideline value and sale consideration, framed under Section 147 r.w. Section 144. The assessee challenged the assessment procedure under Section 144C, arguing that its amendment (w.e.f. 01.04.2020) was not applicable to the relevant assessment year or to cases without transfer pricing issues, thus making the draft assessment order not maintainable.
Held
The Tribunal ruled that the amendment to Section 144C, being procedural law, applies retrospectively, thereby dismissing the assessee's legal argument regarding its applicability. However, on merits, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer with a direction to refer the matter to the DVO for a fresh determination of the fair market value of the property.
Key Issues
1. Whether the amended Section 144C, which came into effect from 01.04.2020, is applicable to the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The correct determination of fair market value of property for Section 56(vii)(b) purposes.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144C, 56(vii)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha
Year: 2016-17 Ramasamy Pushpa, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, D.No. 2/31, Sankarampalayam Village, International Taxation Ward 2(1), Kumaripalayam Post, Chennai. Namakkal 637 015. [PAN:CVWPP7128R] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 21.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai for the assessment year 2016-17.
The assessee raised 6 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] ignoring the amendment with reference to section 144C of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2020.
At the outset, we note that the ld. AR Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. submits that the proviso to section 144C of the Act is not applicable to the assessee since no transfer pricing issue is involved in the case of the assessee in framing the assessment for the year under consideration. He submits that the only issue involved in assessee’s case i.e., difference between the guideline value of the property and sale consideration, which has been brought to assessment by invoking the provisions under section 56(vii)(b) of the Act. He drew our attention to sub-section (15) of section 144C of the Act and submits that sub-clause (ii) i.e., any non-resident, not being a company or any foreign company substituted by Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 01.04.2020. Further, he submits that prior to substitution of sub-clause (ii), explains any “foreign company” and there is no mention of any non-resident. He argued that since no transfer pricing issue relating to international transaction involved in the year under consideration, draft assessment order passed under section 144C of the Act is not maintainable as the assessee was not an “eligible assessee” in the year under consideration.
The ld. DR Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. CIT relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A).
Having heard the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR, we note that admittedly, the assessment year is 2016-17 and amendment came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2020. We find this issue was raised before the ld. CIT(A) and considering the order of the Pune Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Abrar Fakir Mohammad Shaikh [2023] 155 taxmann.com 505 (Pune – Trib.) and held that the assessment procedure which provides a machinery procedure for quantification of charge and levying as well as collection of tax in respect of charge, thereof, it falls under realm of the procedural law. A procedural law is generally applicable to all the pending cases. The procedural law always has the retrospective application and the rule against retrospective operation of statute or a provision is not applicable to a statute or provisions if the same operates in the domain of procedural aspects of the statute. Having held so, the Tribunal held the contention of the assessee therein are devoid of any merit and held that the reassessment proceedings were conducted after the amended provision which came into effect from 01.04.2020 to be justified. In view of the same, we find the arguments of the ld. AR are not acceptable and accordingly dismissed.
On merits, the ld. AR vehemently contended, without prejudice to the above legal ground, prayed that the matter may be referred to the file of the DVO for determining the fair market value, basing on which, the Assessing Officer to determine the fair market value. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration with a direction to refer the matter to the DVO for determining fair market value and pass order accordingly by affording an opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 02nd September, 2025 at Chennai.