BHARAT EKNATH KANPILE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 320/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 December 2022AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that no reference was made to the Valuation Officer under Section 50C, which is mandatory. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication. The on-money addition was also kept in abeyance pending the finalization of capital gains computation.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) concerning alleged on-money receipts and Section 50C additions. The appeal was for Assessment Year 2008-09.

What were the issues?

Whether reassessment proceedings were validly initiated and whether additions under Section 50C were made without the mandatory reference to the Valuation Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI G.D.PADMAHSHALI

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare – AR
For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – DR
Hearing: 01/12/2022Pronounced: 30/12/2022

आयकर अपीलसं. / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Bharat Eknath Kanpile, The DCIT, Circle-8, Pune. C/o.Success Mall, Pune Nashik Vs Highway, Waki, Tal. Khed, . Dist. Pune – 410501. PAN: ABFPK 3450 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Smt. Deepa Khare – AR Revenue by Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – DR Date of hearing 01/12/2022 Date of pronouncement 30/12/2022 आदेश/ ORDER

Per S.S.Godara, JM:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-6, Pune’s order in case no.PN/CIT(A)-V/DCIT Cir-8/314/2014-15 dated 31.10.2017, in proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”].

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:

A.Y. 2008-09 Bharat Eknath Kanpile [A] “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 being initiated in absence of material showing escapement of income in the hands of the appellant is void and may kindly be cancelled.

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.16,01,000/- in respect of Gat no.357/18 as cash consideration received purely on the basis of statement of Shri V K Sharma and without appreciating the facts and evidences led in support of the appellant.

3.

The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.34,51,357/- u/s 50C since there was some mistake committed by the stamp duty valuation authorities and hence, the amount of Rs 5 lacs offered by the The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in adopting the stamp duty valuation without referring the valuation to the valuation officer.

4.

The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in adopting the stamp duty valuation without referring the valuation to the valuation officer.

5.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or substitute any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”

3. Learned counsel has fair enough in not pressing for the assessee’s 1st and 5th substantive grounds. Rejected accordingly.

Next come the assessee’s 2nd to 4th substantive grounds seeking 4. to reverse both the lower authorities action adding the alleged on- money receipts of Rs.16.01 lakhs followed by section 50C addition

A.Y. 2008-09 Bharat Eknath Kanpile [A] of Rs.34,51,357/-; respectively. Suffice to say, we note with the able assistance of both the learned representatives that no reference under section 50C had been made to the DVO either in the course of assessment or in the lower appellate proceedings. Case law Sunil KUma Agrawal Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal) holds such a reference to be mandatory even if the concerned assessee fails to raise his objections before the lower authorities.

We thus restore the assessee’s 3rd and 4th substantive grounds 5. back to the Assessing Officer for his appropriate adjudication as per law in very terms. We stay back on assessee’s on-money addition issue and are of the opinion that the same must also follow the suit once the Assessing Office is yet to finalise the correct amount of capital gain in question. We further make it clear that it shall be the assessee’s risk and responsibly only to produce all the corresponding sale agreement and evidence before the Assessing Officer so as to arrive at the correct sale price of the capital asset(s) in issue. It is further clarified that in case in on-money addition is finally made in assessee’s hands, the same shall be given credit in the section 50C proceedings in the final computation. These 2nd to 4th substantive grounds raised at the assessee’s behest are accepted for statistical purpose therefore.

A.Y. 2008-09 Bharat Eknath Kanpile [A]

6.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th December, 2022.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →