SHREEM PROPERTIES,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-26(3), MUMBAI, BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3319/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 February 2024AY 2017-2018Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Accountant Member), Shri Aby T. Varkey ( (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and the AO did not properly consider Section 43CA provisions and the DVO's report. Therefore, the matter requires fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a builder and developer, was assessed for a difference between sale value and stamp duty value on 17 property sales. The Assessing Officer invoked Section 43CA, making an addition of Rs. 13.03 crores, without receiving the DVO's report before assessment completion.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition under Section 43CA was correctly made without considering the DVO's report and the specific provisions of the section regarding agreement date and percentage difference.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43CA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “G” Bench, Mumbai.

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Aby T. Varkey (JM)

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram
For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Hearing: 05.02.2024Pronounced: 06.02.2024

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 27.7.2023 passed by the learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi and it relates to A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 13.03 crores made under section 43CA of the I.T. Act in an ex-parte order passed by him.

2.

Learned AR submitted that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of builders and developers. During the year under consideration the Assessing Officer noticed that there is difference between sale value shown in the sale deed and stamp duty value determined by the registration authority in respect of seventeen sales made by the assessee. Accordingly, by invoking provisions of section 43CA of the Act, Assessing Officer assessed the difference amount between the two amounts aggregating to Rs. 13.03 crores as income of the assessee. The Learned AR submitted that the assessee had requested the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings to refer the matter of determination of market value of the property to the district valuation officer (DVO). The Assessing Officer also referred the matter to the DVO but did not receive the report of DVO till the date of completion of the assessment. Hence the Assessing Officer proceeded to assess the amount of Rs. 13.03 crores to the total income of the assessee.

3.

Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee did not respond to his notices and hence the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee could not respond to the notices issued by Ld CIT(A) for the reasons beyond its control.

4.

The Learned AR submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 43CA of the Act requires reconsideration on account of the following reasons :

a) The Assessing Officer has not considered the valuation determined by the DVO, since his report did not reach him before completion of the assessment. b) The Assessing Officer has ignored the provisions of section 43CA of the Act which mandates comparison of the sale value shown in the sale deed with the stamp duty value as on the date of entering of “agreement for sale”. He submitted that in the instant case the allotment letter to the prospective buyers of the flat is the agreement to sell and hence the stamp duty value as on that date should have been considered by AO u/s 43CA of the Act. This has resulted in grave mistake in the quantum determined by the Assessing Officer. c) The Assessing Officer has also ignored section 43CA which mandates that no addition is required to be made if the difference between sale consideration shown in the sale deed and stamp duty value is less than 10%.

Accordingly learned AR prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining the issue of applicability of sec. 43CA afresh.

5.

We heard learned DR and perused the record. Having regard to the submissions made by learned AR and also having regard to the fact that the learned CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination. Since the AO has not properly considered the provisions of sec.43CA and also the report of DVO, we are of the view that this issue needs to be examined afresh at the end of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of Assessing Officer for examining it afresh in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to fully cooperate with the Assessing Officer for expeditious completion of the assessment.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 6.2.2024.

More judgments on Section 43CA

All 521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43CA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →