Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood
O R D E R
PER RAVISH SOOD, JM
The present appeal of the assessee was earlier disposed off by the Tribunal, vide its order viz. Mr. Deependra Singh Vs. ITO- 12(2)(1), Mumbai [ 24.01.2018] for A.Y. 2011-12. However, the aforesaid order was recalled by the Tribunal, while disposing off the miscellaneous application of the assessee appellant viz. Mr. Dependra Singh Vs. ITO-12(2)(1), Mumbai [M.A. No. 453/Mum/2018 (arising out of dated 13.05.2019].
As is discernible from the order passed by the Tribunal while disposing off the aforesaid miscellaneous application of the assessee, P a g e | Dependra Singh Vs. ITO-12(2)(1) the impugned order earlier passed was recalled for a limited purpose, on the basis of its following observations:
4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. It is found that in para 5 (page 8) of the impugned order the name and citation of the decision is not mentioned. We also find that as per section 50C, it should appear “the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration, instead of “date of registration
Accordingly, we confine ourselves to the aforesaid limited purpose for which the impugned order has been recalled by the Tribunal while disposing off the miscellaneous application of the assessee.
We find that the Tribunal while restoring the issue pertaining to quantification of the capital gains for the purpose of Sec. 50C of the Act, had though, at Page 5-10 of its impugned order reproduced the relevant extract of the order passed by the ITAT, Ahmedabad “SMC” Bench in Dharamshibhai Sonani Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat (2016) 75 taxman.com 141 (Ahmedabad) (Trib.), however, while finally concluding at Page 11 - Para 5, it had inadvertently omitted to state the name and citation of the said order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the aforesaid mistake in the order of the Tribunal is rectified, and the name and citation of the aforesaid order that was followed by the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal is incorporated in Para 5 – Page 11 of its impugned order.
Also, we find that the term “on the date of registration” by the Tribunal in “line 3” of Para 5 (Page 11) of its impugned order was wrongly mentioned, as against the term “on the date of agreement”. Accordingly, the aforesaid mistake in Page 11- Para 5 of the impugned order is rectified, and the term “on the date of registration” in “line 3”
P a g e | Dependra Singh Vs. ITO-12(2)(1) of the aforesaid Para 5 is substituted by the term “on the date of agreement”.
On the basis of our aforesaid observations the Page 11 – Para 5 of the impugned order of the Tribunal shall herein after be read as under:
“5. Respectfully following the decision of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench “SMC” in the case of Dharamshibhai Sonani Vs. Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Circle- 9, Surat (2016) 75 taxman.com 141 (Ahmedabad) (Trib.), relevant extract of which has been reproduced by us hereinabove, we restore the issue back to the file of A.O to verify whether Rs. 10,00,000/- was received by the assessee on the date of agreement by cheque or not. If the assessee produces the evidence that he has received the money by cheque then the stamp valuation should be taken as on 19.08.2006 In terms of our aforesaid observations, the impugned order of the Tribunal is modified as hereinabove.
The appeal of the assessee, which as observed by us hereinabove, was recalled for the limited purpose of giving effect to the order passed by the Tribunal while disposing off the miscellaneous application of the assessee viz. Mr. Dependra Singh Vs. ITO-12(2)(1), Mumbai [M.A. No. 453/Mum/2018 (Arising out of A.Y. 2011-12] is disposed off in terms of our aforesaid observations.