Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI G.S.PANNU & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M:
The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue pertaining to assessment year 2011-12 is directed against an order passed by CIT(A)-9, Mumbai dated 30/12/2014, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 26/02/2014.
In this appeal, Revenue has raised the following Grounds of appeal:-
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of sale of flats without appreciating the fact that transactions in immovable properties cannot be at lower value then that determined by the Stamp Duty Authorities.
2. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law consequently merits to be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.”
In brief, the relevant facts are that the respondent assessee is engaged in the business of builders and developers. In the course of its business activity, assessee sold commercial properties and the income was offered under the head ‘business income’. The Assessing Officer noticed that some of flats sold were below the market value determined by the Stamp Duty Authorities and, therefore, he invoked the provisions of section 50C of the Act and treated the sale consideration of such flats at market value, which led to an addition of Rs.2,85,56,832/- to the returned income. The CIT(A) has deleted the addition following the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2008-09 in vide order dated 15/06/2012, wherein identical controversy was decided in favour of the assessee. Against such a decision of the CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us.
Before us, the Ld. Representative for the respondent assessee pointed out that the decision of the Tribunal for assessment year 2008-09(supra) continues to hold the field and has not been altered by any higher authority; and, that in assessment year 2010-11 also, the Tribunal has taken a similar view in dated 23/04/2015, a copy of which has been placed on record.
In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, which has not been disputed by the Revenue, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A), which is based on the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case on an identical issue. Thus, the decision of the CIT(A) is affirmed and Revenue fails in its appeal.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19/10/2016