PAHLAJMAL PARTOMAL KHATRI HUF,AMRAVATI vs. I.T.O., WARD 4, AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 145/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 June 2025Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal referred to a coordinate bench decision that a "safer zone/bracket of 10%" amended by the Finance Act, 2020, with retrospective effect, is curative in nature. This decision was followed in a similar case for a co-owner.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased a property with co-owners for a consideration of ₹ 1,10,72,000/-, while the valuation determined was ₹ 1,19,63,800/-. The Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹ 29,90,950/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer based on the difference in property valuation is justified, considering the retrospective curative nature of the 10% safer zone provision?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Finance Act, 2020

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, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal
For Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale

Aforesaid appeal by the assessee, is against the impugned order dated 30/12/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai, [for short “Ld. Commissioner”] for the assessment year 2015–16.

2.

In the instant case, the assessee along with other co–owners had purchased property on a consideration of ` 1,10,72,000/– as against the valuation of ` 1,19,63,800/– as determined by the 2 Pahlajmal Partomal Khatri (HUF) ITA no.145/Nag./2025 Valuation Authority vide valuation dated 26/10/2017. Consequently, the Assessing Officer made the addition of ` 29,90,950/–, being 1/4th of total consideration of ` 1,19,63,800/– and the difference between the valuation adopted by the Valuation Officer and valuation shown by the assessee. Admittedly, the safer zone / bracket of 10% as amended by the Finance Act, 2020, w.e.f. 01/04/2021, which is having retrospective effect being curative in nature, as determined by the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in C. Maria Fernandes v/s ITO, [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum.), which has duly and respectfully been followed by the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, in case of one of the co–owners titled as Harish Pehlajmal Khatri (HUF) v/s ITO, ITA no.384/Nag./2022, vide order dated 26/03/2024. Thus, the appeal raised by the assessee is hereby allowed by deleting the addition under consideration.

3.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/06/2025

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →