SHRI RAJESH SRICHAND UTTAMANI ,NAGPUR vs. A.CIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK RIPOTE
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-
2014, arises against the CIT(A)-1, Nagpur’s Order No.CIT(A)-1/
219/2015-16, dated 05.03.2020, involving proceedings
u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s
behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
We have noticed that there is a delay of 59 days in
filing the appeal before the tribunal. The Assessee has placed
2 I.T.A.No.91/NAG./2020
on record a condonation petition/affidavit dated 24.06.2020
inter alia stating therein that the same is attributable to Covid-
2019 period and submitted that the delay be condoned as per
hon’ble apex court’s directions in Cognizance for Extension of
Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in
Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC)
dated 08-03-2021 and 421 ITR 314 (SC), excluding the covid-
19 pandemic outbreak period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022
for all intents and purposes under the limitation law. We,
therefore, condone the delay of 59 days and proceed to decide
the appeal on merits, after hearing the Learned DR.
We now advert to the assessee’s sole substantive
issue of sec.50C addition of long term capital gains amounting
to Rs.10,47,898/- made in the course of assessment herein
dated 21.08.2015 as upheld in the CIT(A)'s order. It emerges
during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming
from the Revenue side that the assessee had sold/transferred
the following capital assets in the relevant previous year as per
the Assessing Officer’s assessment at page-2 para-3 as under :
3 I.T.A.No.91/NAG./2020 4. The Revenue could hardly dispute that none of the
foregoing transfer(s) executed at the assessee’s behest involved
more than 10% difference as per sec.50C in light of the 3rd
proviso to sub-sec.(1) thereof. Ms. Patil vehemently argued at
this stage that neither of the three statutory proviso(s) in
sec.50C(1) of the Act inserted in Finance Act, 2016 onwards
covers the assessee’s case as we are in assessment year 2013-
2014 only. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant arguments in
light of Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. ACIT [2016] 161 ITD 627
(Ahd.) and Maria Fernandez Cheryl vs. ITO (International
Taxation) [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum.–Tribu.) holding that the
legislature has inserted [1st and 2nd proviso(s) and [3rd proviso]
respectively; to sec.50C(1) as curative measures which carry
retrospective effect. We accordingly accept the assessee’s
instant sole substantive grievance challenging the learned
lower authorities action making long term capital gains
addition of Rs.10,47,898/- since falling within the tolerance
margin of 10% u/sec.50C(1) (3rd) proviso of the Act in very
terms. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.09.2023.
Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 28th September, 2023 VBP/-
4 I.T.A.No.91/NAG./2020
Copy to
The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A)-1, Nagpur. 4. The PCIT concerned, Nagpur. 5. D.R. ITAT, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. 6. Guard File.
//By Order//
//True Copy //
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.
S.No. Details Date 1 Draft dictated on 25.09.2023 Sr.PS 2 Draft placed before author 26.09.2023 Sr.PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Author .09.2023 J.M. 4 .09.2023 A.M. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS .09.2023 Sr.PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on .09.2023 Sr.PS 7 Date of uploading of Order .09.2023 Sr.PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk .09.2023 Sr.PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order
