BHARAT JALANDAR PATOLE,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), KOLHAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 394/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in applying the amended Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which had prospective effect from 01.07.2012. The tribunal followed the case law of Pooja Prints (2014) 360 ITR 697 (Bom.) and applied the pre-amendment provision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 involved a dispute regarding the cost of acquisition of a capital asset. The assessee's valuer reported a cost of Rs. 240/- per sq. feet as on 01.04.1981, which was reduced by the DVO's report to Rs. 15/- per sq. metre.

What were the issues?

The key issue was the applicability of the amendment to Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the valuation of a capital asset, and whether it had retrospective effect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 55A,Section 147,Section 144

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, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 22.03.2024Pronounced: 15.05.2024

Date of Hearing : 22.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 15.05.2024 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1061124934(1), dated 19.02.2024, involving proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s instant appeal raises first and foremost legal issue of applicability of Sec.55(a) amendment/substituted by way of Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012 that value of a capital asset claimed “is at variance with it’s fair market value”. It is in this statutory

2 ITA.No.394/PUN./2024 backdrop the assessee’s instant appeal and pleadings herein make it evident that his registered valuer’s report had claimed cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 @ Rs.240/- per sq. feet as reduced by the DVO’s valuation report to Rs.15/- per sq. metre. It is indeed very much relevant to pinpoint here that the earlier legislative expression used in sec.55A(a) would be applicable in case the FMV “is less than it’s fair value” up to 01.07.2012 before the foregoing amendment. That being the case, this tribunal is of the considered view that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in going by the DVO’s report not having considered the earlier statutory provision in above terms. Case law Pooja Prints (2014) 360 ITR 697 (Bom.) has already settled the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department that the foregoing statutory amendment does not carry any retrospective effect. I accordingly accept the assessee’s foregoing sole substantive ground in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.

More judgments on Section 55A

All 409 judgments and leading authorities on Section 55A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →