Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE : [VIRTUAL HEARING]
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH,
BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.820/PUN./2023 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2016-2017 Suyog Development Corporation Limited, The ACIT, Parshwa Bldg., Office Circle-6, vs. No.27, Pune City, Pune, Pune. Market ZYard S.O. (Pune) Maharashtra. PIN 411037.Maharashtra. PAN AAICS6329R (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ankur Mehta and Shri Sajjan Tarunwar For Revenue : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 09.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016- 2017, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1052994258(1), dated 19.05.2023, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee herein challenges correctness of both the learned lower authorities action making sec.43CA addition of 2 I.T.A.No.820/PUN./2023 Rs.31,89,249/- in the course of assessment dated 17.12.2018 as upheld in the NFAC’s order.
3. We now advert to the rival stands raised in the instant case. The assessee is admittedly engaged in real estate development business. It had transferred five residential units treated as stock-in-trade which carried difference between actual sale price and stamp value thereof as exceeding 10%. This made both the learned lower authorities to invoke sec.43CA of the Act. The assessee’s stand from the very beginning is that it is the date of the booking of the said residential units which ought to be treated as the clinching date of relevant agreement(s) as per sec.43CA(3) and (4) whereas the Revenue’s plea before us is that the relevant factor herein is the date of actual transfer(s) in the previous year only.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stands and find no reason to accept either parties submissions in entirety. This is for the precise reason that neither the assessee has filed all the relevant details indicating that the corresponding booking dates in fact satisfy the rigor of “agreement” u/sec.43CA(3) and (4) nor the department has made a statutory reference to the DVO under sub-sec.(2) thereof to be read in light of sec.50C(2) of the Act made applicable mutatis mutandis herein by the legislature. Case law Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 83 (Cal.)
3 I.T.A.No.820/PUN./2023 (HC) has settled the issue that such a reference ought to be mandatorily made even if the assessee concerned fails to make a prayer during the course of assessment. Faced with the situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance back to the learned Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.02.2024.