EKNATH DHONDIBA KURADE,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE

It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed in the instant appeal challenges correctness of the learned lower authorities action

The Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned Assessing Officer’s impugned discussion in paragraphs5 to 5.8 has itself prepared a chart of assessee’s corresponding residential units sold/transferred in the relevant previous year. The assessee has also filed the corresponding chart at page-41 of his paper book whose details have nowhere been called in question at the Revenue’s behest. A perusal of this clinching chart reveals that in none of the 13 residential units in question; the price difference between actual one vis-à-vis the stamp valuation nowhere exceeded 10% going by sec.43CA(1) first proviso of the Act.

Learned DR vehemently argued that this tolerance margin of 10% has substituted the earlier 5% range by the Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 which carries only prospective effect.

We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant arguments in light of this tribunal’s decision in C. Maria Fernandes vs. ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum.) having rejected the very stand in sec.50C addition which is indeed para materia to sec.43CA of the Act since the only difference is that 3 ITA.No.574/PUN./2024 the former gets invoked in case of capital asset whereas sec.43CA is attracted when the corresponding asset forms part of the stock-in-trade. We thus reject the Revenue’s vehement arguments in very terms to delete the impugned addition of Rs.7,42,858/- in very terms.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.