MAHESH PROPERTIES,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3 (1), PUNE

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 arises against the CIT(A)-3 Pune’s order dated 21.05.2019 passed in case no.PN/CIT(A)-3/Wd-3(1),Pn/289/2017-18 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground challenging correctness of both the lower authorities’ action invoking section 43CA addition of Rs.20,22,807/-, it emerges that the same pertains to sale of its flats in “Crystal Avenue” and “Sindhu Palace” involving five and two flats; respectively. 3. I find with the able assistance coming from Revenue side as well as from a perusal of the Assessing Officer’s corresponding tabulation(s) that assessee’s all five flats in former project involve difference of less than “5%” tolerance margin in light of section 43CA(1) 1st proviso inserted by the Finance Act, 2018 w.e.f. 1.4.2019. This is coupled with the fact that the assessee’s former flat in latter project (supra) had less than “10%” differential margin as per the substitution made in the foregoing proviso vide Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 1.4.2021. 4. Mr. Desai vehemently argued at the Revenue’s behest that the foregoing twin tolerance margins do not carry any retrospective effect. I find no reason to accept the instant argument as section 43CA applies in an instance of “transfer of assets other than capital assets in certain cases” which is pari materia to section 50C applicable when a capital asset is transferred. The legislature appears to have introduced the foregoing twin tolerance margins of “5%” and “10%” vide Finance Act, 2018 w.e.f. 1.4.2019 as substituted in the Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 1.4.2021; respectively in