Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM & SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM
आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM :
This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 is directed against the CIT(A)-3, Pune’s order dated 21/09/2015 passed in case No.PN/CIT(A)-3/DCIT Cir- 4/128/2014-15 involving proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short "the Act.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Late Bhushan Ramchandra Zinjurde, .,
The first and foremost issue between the parties herein is regarding addition of Rs.1.9 crore out of total consideration of Rs. 5.5 crores. It is an admitted fact that assessee had indeed declared the first installment of Rs.3.6 Crores representing the actually received amount going by the agreement corresponding dated 19.03.2011 executed with M/s. Sonigara Promoters. Learned lower authorities have added the impugned balance component as well thereby rejecting assessee’s plea of a dispute having being arisen between the parties.
We notice in this factual background that the assessee had filed its detailed paperbook and more particularly a recent cancellation deed dated 01.04.2022 duly registered before the prescribed authority that the impugned balance consideration has been decided to have been reduced from the forgoing sum of Rs.5.5 crores. Faced with this situation and keeping in mind the fact that this is in the nature of additional evidence only, we deem it appropriate to restore the instant former issue back to the assessing authority for its afresh adjudication after necessary factual verification in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
Next comes assessee’s latter issue of cost of acquisition as on 01.4.1981 involving rival valuation reports from the registered valuer as well as the DVO; as the case may be. Suffice to say, the assessee had considered the impugned cost of 13.50 lacs whereas the Assessing Officer has adopted the same at Rs.63,000/- only. The Revenue could hardly dispute the corresponding clinching statutory expression “is at variance with its fair market value” has come from 1.7.2012 vide Finance Act 2012 thereby
Late Bhushan Ramchandra Zinjurde, ., substituting “is less than its fair market value”. The same admittedly carries prospective effect whereas we are in assessment year 2011-12. We thus quote CIT Vs Puja Prints 2014 360 ITR 697(Bom.) that the impugned statutory provision could not be applied with retrospective effect for the purpose of ascertaining such a cost acquisition claimed as more than the fair market value. We accordingly accept the assessee’s latter substantive ground in very terms. No other ground has been pressed before us.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 8th day of June, 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- S (DR.DIPAK P.RIPOTE) (S.S. GODARA) लेखध सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यधनयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER पपणे / Pune; ददनधांक / Dated : 8th June, 2022. Ashwini आदेश की प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपऩलधथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A)-3, Pune. 4. The Pr.CIT-2, Pune. 5. नवभधगऩय प्रनतनननध, आयकर अपऩलऩय अनधकरण, “ए” बेंच, पपणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गधर्ा फ़धइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशधनपसधर / BY ORDER,