DNYESHWAR KESHAVRAO BHOSALE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 801/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 February 2024AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not establish the asset as a 'capital asset' nor did they refer the matter to the DVO as required. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2015-16 concerned an addition of Rs. 10.79 lakhs under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act. This addition represented the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual sale price of a property.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) was valid without establishing the asset as a capital asset and without referring to the DVO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE : [VIRTUAL HEARING]

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 26.02.2024Pronounced: 26.02.2024

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.801/PUN./2023 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2015-2016 Dnyeshwar Keshavrao The Income Tax Officer, Bhosale, Plot No.1, Survey Ward-1(1), No.1212, Anandwalli Room No.7, Kendriya Bhawan, Savarkar Nagar, Nashik. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, vs. PIN – 422 013 Maharashtra. Nashik. Maharashtra. PAN AHZPB1687B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri R P Daware For Revenue : Shri Gaurav K Singh Date of Hearing : 26.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26.02.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1052643783(1), dated 08.05.2023, involving proceedings u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Learned DR submitted during the course of proceedings that both the learned lower authorities have rightly made the impugned sec.56(2)(vii)(b) addition of Rs.10.79 lakhs representing the difference between the stamp value of Rs.61.58 lakhs and the actual sale price of Rs.40 lakhs in the relevant transfer deed dated

2 ITA.No.801/PUN./2024 11.03.2015, to the extent of half share in the taxpayer’s hands in very terms.

3.

It is noticed during the course of hearing that neither there is any concrete indication that the asset in question forms the ‘capital asset’ within the meaning of Explanation-(d) to sec.56(2)(vii)(b) nor the learned lower authorities have made the statutory reference to DVO in terms of Proviso to sub-sec.(c) thereof. Faced with this situation, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the learned Assessing Officer for his afresh adjudication on merits preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

3. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

All 626 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →