Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT

Bharat Eknath Kanpile, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri G.D.Padmahshali

…fice to say, we note with the able assistance of both the learned representatives that no reference under section 50C had been made to the DVO either in the course of assessment or in the lower appellate proceedings. Case law Sunil KUma Agrawal Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal) holds such a reference to be mandatory even if the concerned assessee fails to raise his objections before the lower authorities. We thus restore the assessee’s 3rd and 4th substantive grounds 5. back to the Assessing Officer for his appropriate adjudication as per law in very terms. We stay back on assessee’s on-money addition issue and ar…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2, Nashik vs. Naresh J. Karda, Nashik

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmashali

…essing Officer finds the impugned difference between the assessee’s actual sale price vis-à-vis stamp price exceeding 10%, he shall make a reference to the DVO u/s. 43A(2) to (4) r.w.s. 50C(2) [held as mandatory in nature in Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 83 (Cal.) (HC)] followed by his necessary adjudication on merits. Ordered accordingly. 11. Both the learned representatives have further argued before us that the sale price herein ought to be adopted as per the concerned figures in the agreement to sell at the time of booking of the asset [assessee’s stand] as against the Revenue’s case that it is…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2, Nashik vs. Naresh J. Karda, Nashik

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmashali

…essing Officer finds the impugned difference between the assessee’s actual sale price vis-à-vis stamp price exceeding 10%, he shall make a reference to the DVO u/s. 43A(2) to (4) r.w.s. 50C(2) [held as mandatory in nature in Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 83 (Cal.) (HC)] followed by his necessary adjudication on merits. Ordered accordingly. 11. Both the learned representatives have further argued before us that the sale price herein ought to be adopted as per the concerned figures in the agreement to sell at the time of booking of the asset [assessee’s stand] as against the Revenue’s case that it is…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2, Nashik vs. Naresh J. Karda, Nashik

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmashali

…essing Officer finds the impugned difference between the assessee’s actual sale price vis-à-vis stamp price exceeding 10%, he shall make a reference to the DVO u/s. 43A(2) to (4) r.w.s. 50C(2) [held as mandatory in nature in Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 83 (Cal.) (HC)] followed by his necessary adjudication on merits. Ordered accordingly. 11. Both the learned representatives have further argued before us that the sale price herein ought to be adopted as per the concerned figures in the agreement to sell at the time of booking of the asset [assessee’s stand] as against the Revenue’s case that it is…

Indravadan H. Suratwala, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 5 (1), Pune

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

…thereafter framed these twin re-assessments adding long term capital gain in A.Y. 2007-08 without making a statutory reference to the D.V.O which has Indravardan H. Suratwala A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 been held as mandatory in Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2014) 373 ITR 83 (Cal). This is indeed coupled with the fact that the CIT(A)’s orders under challenge in both these cases have been passed ex parte without even indicating any evidence of actual service of notices as per the respective tabulations in para 3 para 1 in both these assessment years. Faced with this situation, I deem it proper to restore the assessee’s…

Indravadan H. Suratwala, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 5 (1), Pune

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

…thereafter framed these twin re-assessments adding long term capital gain in A.Y. 2007-08 without making a statutory reference to the D.V.O which has Indravardan H. Suratwala A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 been held as mandatory in Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2014) 373 ITR 83 (Cal). This is indeed coupled with the fact that the CIT(A)’s orders under challenge in both these cases have been passed ex parte without even indicating any evidence of actual service of notices as per the respective tabulations in para 3 para 1 in both these assessment years. Faced with this situation, I deem it proper to restore the assessee’s…

Bhujpal Brothers Construction Company, Pune vs. ITO Ward 3(5), Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.21/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Bhujbal Brothers Construction The Income Tax Officer, Company, Vs Ward-3(5), Pune. Bhujbal House, S.No.28 , Karve Nagar, Pune – 411052. Pan: Aagfb 7974 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 04.11.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3Ito Wd. 3(5)/388/2018-19 In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

…(1) as well as section 43CA(1) 1st proviso of the Act. We, thus adopt the said reasoning mutatis-mutandis and direct the Assessing Officer to first make reference to the DVO in light of section 43CA(2); held as mandatory in Sunil Kumar Aggarwal Vs. CIT [2015] 373 ITR 83 (Kolkata), to determine FMV of the corresponding assets and then make the impugned addition only in case the differential value between the actual sale price and FMV determined turns out it to be more than 10% only, as per law in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above…

Kavita Polymers, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(2), Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.52/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kavita Polymers, Vs. Acit, Central Circle- S-196, Midc, Bhosari, 2(2), Pune. Pune- 411026. Pan : Aadfk1774G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)- 12, Pune’S Order Dated 28.10.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-12/10475/2017-18 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. It Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised Herein Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Making Section 50C Addition Of Long & Short Term Capital Gains Amounting

…dition on account of transfer of factory building of Rs.1,60,38,394/-. The Revenue could not dispute that the learned lower authorities had never made any statutory reference to the DVO which has been held to be mandatory in Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Calcutta). Their lordships hold that such reference has to be mandatorily made even if the assessee concerned does not raise any objection to this effect. We therefore restore the assessee’s instant latter substantive grievance back to the Assessing Officer regarding 5 its “building” valuation issue to be decided afresh as per law within three e…

M/S Nisarg Developers, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 14, Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.57/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Nisarg Developers, Vs. Dcit, Circle-14, Pune. S.No.84/3B, Gund Vasti, Pune Solapur Road, Manjari, Pune- 412307. Pan : Aagfn9362G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)- 7, Pune’S Order Dated 08.11.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-7/10338/2017-18 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. We Note At The Outset That The Cit(A)’S Lower Appellate Order Affirming The Assessing Officer’S Action Making Section 43Ca Addition Of Rs.19,10,334/- In Assessment Order Dated 14.11.2017;

…ifference between the foregoing twin rates is admittedly more than 10% wherein the learned lower authorities have not made any reference to the DVO in light of section 43CA(2) adopting section 50C(2)&(3) of the Act. Case law Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Calcutta) holds the same to be mandatory even if the assessee concerned does not raise any such contention. We accordingly conclude that the Assessing Officer herein requires to re-adjudicate the entire issue afresh in light of our preceding detailed discussion. It is further made clear that the impugned addition made u/s 43CA would not be repeat…

M/S Gods Gift Landmark, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 3(4), Pune

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara

…. Learned departmental representative could hardly rebut the basic principle that Sec.43CA(2) adopts the provisions of Sec.50C(2) & (3) which require the Assessing Officer to mandatorily make reference to the DVO in light of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2014) 372 ITR 83 (Cal.) even if the taxpayer concerned does not raise such an objection. I therefore direct the Assessing Officer to determine fair market value of the assessee’s flat(s) sold forming subject matter of the impugned Sec.43CA addition after making statutory reference to the DVO as per law. Ordered accordingly. 5. Delay of 373 days in filing of the i…

Mahesh Properties, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3 (1), Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1134/PUN/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mahesh Properties, Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Pune. Ganesh Gruharachana Sanstha CTS No.15, Final Plot No.17/A/3 Karve Road Erandawane, Pune- 411004. PAN : AAPFM5247G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 23.05.2022 Date of pronouncement : 26.05.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 arises against the CIT(A)-3 Pune’s order dated 21.05.2019 pas…