AJINATH SANTRAM KHARAT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), NASHIK, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1771/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 January 2025AY 2015-168 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that there was an apparent mistake in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) had mistakenly dismissed the assessee's appeal by considering the Vivad Se Vishwas (VSVS) Scheme settlement. Upon perusal of Form No. 3, it was evident that the VSVS settlement was for Rs. 10,000/- pertaining to a penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The appeal dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) was against the addition made in the assessment order. The Ld.DR accepted these facts. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 29/04/2024 for de-novo adjudication on merits, with an opportunity for hearing to the assessee. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ajinath Santram Kharat, filed an appeal before the ITAT challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A)/Addl.CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2015-16. The Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal against an assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 27/12/2019. The dismissal was based on the Ld.CIT(A)'s observation that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas (VSVS) Scheme, and a certificate in Form-3 was issued. The assessee contended that the VSVS scheme was applied to a penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act, not to the addition made in the assessment order, which was the subject of the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 8,50,834/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of the difference between the actual purchase consideration of agricultural land and the stamp duty valuation, considering that the land was agricultural and not a capital asset, thus not attracting the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii)? Assessee's contention: The Ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition as the land purchased was agricultural land and not a capital asset, therefore, section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) was not attracted. All evidence was before the AO, and no additional evidence was filed before the Ld.CIT(A). The dismissal of this ground by the Ld.CIT(A) was unjustified. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii),Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250,Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE

Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri harshan Nasikkar- AR
For Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Shelake – Addl.JCIT(DR)
Hearing: 02/01/2025Pronounced: 31/01/2025

Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ajinath Santram Kharat, V The Addl./JCIT(A), Flat No.K-1102, 24 K Stargaze, s Panaji. Koltepatil Developers, Sr.No.76 to 89, Bavdhan, Pune – 411021. PAN: ACXPK5630R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri harshan Nasikkar– AR Revenue by Shri Ratnakar Shelake – Addl.JCIT(DR) Date of hearing 02/01/2025 Date of pronouncement 31/01/2025 आदेश/ ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the Order of Ld.CIT(A)/Addl.CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act A.Y.2015-16 on 29/04/2024 emanating from the Assessment Order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 27/12/2019. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

1. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in upholding addition to the extent of Rs.8,50,834/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the I.T.Act 1961, on account of difference between the actual purchase consideration of agricultural land at Pali, Taluka Sudhagad, Dist. Raigad and the value as per stamp valuation authorities, not appreciating that the land purchased was agricultural land and not being a capital asset, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) were not attracted and that all evidences relied upon were before the ld AO and no additional evidences were filed before Hon CIT(A) and therefore dismissal of this ground by the Hon CIT(A) was not justified and consequent addition be kindly deleted.

2.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and or vary the grounds of appeal at any time before the decision of the appeal.”

Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case the Ld.AR has filed a paper book. Ld.AR submitted Ld.CIT(A) has erroneously dismissed the Appeal of the assessee filed against Order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 27/12/2019 stating that the Assessee has filed an application under DTVSV. Ld.AR took us through us the order of the Ld.CIT(A) wherein the Ld.CIT(A) has mentioned Form Number 3 having No.923588670281220. Ld.AR took us through the Form Number 3 having number 923588670281220 which is at page 56 of the paper book. Ld.AR demonstrated that the aid form was filed for Penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act , where as the Appeal dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) was against the addition made in the assessment order. We have carefully studied the Ld.CIT(A)’s order and the Form Number 3 of DTVSV. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced here under :

3. The perusal of Form No.3 explains that the Form No.3 is for Rs.10,000/- only which is a penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Ld.DR has accepted the facts. Thus there is apparent mistake in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Ld.AR submitted that he had made a petition before ld.Pr.Chief Commissioner[NFAC] along with the Affidavit to correct the mistake apparent from record. However, ld.Pr.CC has not corrected it, hence, Assessee had to file appeal before ITAT.

3.1 We have verified the facts and there is an apparent mistake. Ld.CIT(A) mistakenly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we set- aside the order dated 29/04/2024 for A.Y.2015-16 passed by Ld.CIT(A)/ Addl.CIT(A) to Ld.CIT(A) for de-novo- adjudication. The ld.CIT(A) shall decide the appeal on merits. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

4.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Condonation of Delay : 5. There was a Delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal. We have perused the submission of the assessee and are convinced that there was sufficient cause for delay. Accordingly, we condoned the delay. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31st January, 2025.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii)

All 128 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →