MACHINDRA L. BODKE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 9(3), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2829/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 April 2022AY 2009-104 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in applying an amended statutory provision with retrospective effect to disregard the assessee's registered valuer's report. The addition made on account of capital gains was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s order confirming the valuation of land as on 01.04.1981 at Rs.20 per Sq.Mt. instead of Rs.240 per Sq.Mt. claimed by the assessee, leading to an addition to capital gains.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities correctly applied the amended provisions of Section 55(A)(a) to disregard the registered valuer's report for determining the fair market value of land as on 01.04.1981.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 55A,Section 55(A)(a)

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, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM & SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM

For Appellant: Dr. Vardhaman L. Jain
For Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Hearing: 19.04.2022Pronounced: 22.04.2022

आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM :

1.

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 directed against the CIT(A) - 6, Pune’s order dated 20/09/2017 in case No. PN/CIT(A) -6 /ITO W.9(3)/151/2016-17 involving proceeding u/s. 143(3) 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: “1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) in erred in law and on facts in confirming the valuation of land as on 01.04.1981 at Rs.20/- per Sq.Mt as against that of Rs.240 per Sq. Mt. claimed by the appellant, and thereby making addition of Rs.1,21,59,030/- to the Income from Capital Gains.”

3.

The assessee does not press for his former substantial ground challenging validity of proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act. Rejected accordingly.

4.

Next comes assessee’s latter issue of fair market value as on 01.04.1981 for the purpose of computing capital gains claimed @ of Rs.240 Sq.Mt. as per registered value report which has seen reduced to Rs.20 per Sq.Mt. only resulting in addition of Rs.1,21,59,030/-. We note, that the same has arisen on account of the fact that the lower authorities have proceeded to disturb assessee’s registered valuer’s report to this affect u/s. 55A of the Act.

5.

There is hardly any dispute between the parties, that the assessee’s registered valuer had determined the cost of acquisition/ fair market value as on 01.04.1981 at the rate of Rs.240 sq.ft. which admittedly happens to be already more than the SRO price at that point of time. The Revenue could not rebut the fact that the legislative amendment in Section 55(A)(a) substituting the earlier provision that the fair market value so claimed “is less than its fair market value” by “is at variance with its fair market value” has come by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.07.2012 whereas we are in assessment year 2009-10 only. Case law [2014] 367 ITR 238 (Guj) CIT Vs Gauranginiben S.Shodhan & [2006] 103 TTJ 216 (Pune) Smt. Krishnabai Tingre Vs. ITO holds that the Assessing Officer ought not to ignore a registered valuer report in identical circumstances by applying the amended statutory provision with retrospective effect. We adopt the very reasoning mutatis mutandis to delete the impugned addition. Ordered accordingly.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 22nd day of April, 2022.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →