M/S SEVEN STAR DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 598/PUN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2022AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It deleted the addition made under Section 43CA, finding that the difference between sale price and SRO rates was within the permissible tolerance. An ad-hoc disallowance was reduced.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a significant delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The appeal challenged additions made by the lower authorities under Section 43CA and an ad-hoc disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether the tolerance margin for Section 43CA applies retrospectively, and the validity of an ad-hoc disallowance without proper basis.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43CA,Section 50C,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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.

  • 438 ITR 296
    438 ITR 296 · 2021 · SC
    196 citing
  • 432 ITR 206
    432 ITR 206 · 2020 · SC
    182 citing
  • 421 ITR 314
    421 ITR 314 · SC
    172 citing
  • Dharamashibhai Sonani v. Asstt. CIT
    75 Taxmann.com 141 · 2016 · ITAT
    26 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI S. S. GODARA

For Appellant: Shri J. R. Chandrakar
For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Hearing: 24.05.2022Pronounced: 26.05.2022

ORDER

PER S. S. GODARA, JM:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 arises against the CIT(A)-4 Pune’s order dated 26.02.2020 passed in case no. PN/CIT(A)-4/Ward-6(2),Pune/177/2017-18 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset that instant appeal suffers from 378 days delay in filing. I find that the CIT(A) has passed his lower 26.02.2020 which followed outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic during which the assessee filed the instant appeal on 22.11.2021. The Revenue could hardly dispute that hon’ble apex court latest directions in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 and 421 ITR 314 have made it clear that the lockdown periods between 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 shall extend excluded from all prescribed limitations. I therefore condone the impugned delay neither intentional nor deliberate. 3. Coming to the assessee’s former substantive ground that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making section 43CA addition of Rs.12,20,150/-, Mr. Desai could hardly dispute that the same represents less than 10% difference between the actual sale price vis-à-vis SRO rates of the twin flats in “Avnish Regency” project. 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

More judgments on Section 43CA

All 521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43CA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →