SHRIPAL TEJRAJ MUNOT,DHULE vs. INCOAME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, DHULE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 131/PUN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 July 2022AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in law and facts by reducing the cost of acquisition. The valuation was considered fair market value as per Section 55A(a) of the Act, and the relevant statutory amendment was prospective.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an addition made by the lower authorities on account of long-term capital gains. The addition was made by reducing the cost of acquisition as on April 1, 1981, based on a registered valuer's report.

What were the issues?

Whether the reduction in the cost of acquisition for long-term capital gains was justified, considering the valuation report and the applicability of statutory amendments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 55A

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 BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI S. S. GODARA

For Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Hearing: 28.07.2022Pronounced: 28.07.2022

ORDER

PER S. S. GODARA, JM:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi’s order dated 03.03.2021 passed in case no.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2020- 21/1031172239(1) involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in his pleading challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action Rs.24,42,860/- thereby reducing the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 taken as per the registered valuer’s report. 3. Suffice to say, Mr. Jasnani would hardly dispute the clinching fact that the assessee’s valuation was nowhere less than fair market value as per section 55A(a) of the Act as I am dealing with assessment year 2012-13 whereas the legislature has amended the same w.e.f. 1.7.2012 relevant to the succeeding assessment year 2013-14. Hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in ITO vs. Puja Prints (2014) 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) holds the foregoing statutory amendments as carrying prospective effect only. Faced with this situation, I hold that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making the impugned long term capital gains addition. The same is directed to be deleted. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced on this 28th day of July, 2022. Sd/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 28th July, 2022. Sujeet (DOC)

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →