Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune

Shivraj Jayaram Hegde,, Pune vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 4 (2),, Pune on 21 February, 2020

         IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                  PUNE BENCH "B", PUNE

           BEFORE SHRI George Mathan, Judicial Member and
               Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member

                        Stay Petition No. 11/PUN/2020
                   Arising out of I.T.A. No. 1383/PUN/2020
                         Assessment Year: 2015-16


Shivraj Jayaram Hegde,
Shrushti Apartment,
Opp. Corporation Bank, Baner
Pune-411 045.

PAN; ABSPH 3388 K                                   Applicant

Vs.

I.T.O. Ward 4(2) Pune                               Respondent


                   Appellant by:  Shri Rajendra Nahar
                   Respondent by: Shri S.P. Walimbe
                   Date of hearing:          21-02-2020
                   Date of Pronouncement:     21-02-2020


                                  ORDER


PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This stay petition is filed by the assessee arising out of I.T.A. No. 1383/PUN/2020 for A.Y. 2015-16.

2. Shri Rajendra Nahar is represented for the assessee. Shri S.P. Walimbe is represented for the Revenue.

3. It was submitted by the learned A.R that the total demand in this case was for an amount of Rs. 86,57,689/- against which the assessee had paid an 2 Stay Petition No. 11 of 2020 (ITA No. 1383 of 2020) Shivraj Jayaram Hegde A.Y. 2015-16 amount of Rs. 27,72,220/- and the balance of Rs. 58,85,470/- is outstanding payment. It was his submission that the issue in this appeal was with respect of the addition made u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to "the Act"). It was his submission that the assessee had purchased an immoveable property for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- whereas the property was valued for stamp duty purposes at Rs. 4,92,00,000/-. It was his submission that the difference between the stamp duty valuation and the actual cost of acquisition was treated as income from other sources in the hands of the assessee. It was his submission that on appeal, the CIT(A) had reduced the valuation from Rs. 4,92,00,000/- to Rs. 3,49,65,000/- on the basis of D.V.O‟s report dated 29-5-2018 which was not available to the A.O at the time of completion of the assessment. It was his submission that the D.V.O has not considered various defects in the property which has resulted into the lower valuation. It was his submission that the assessee has substantially strong case on merits in appeal. It was his prayer that the assessee may be granted stay of recovery of the balance amount.

4. In reply, the learned D.R submitted that the D.V.O has considered valuation and no further reduction was due to the assessee. The learned D.R submitted that stay should not be granted. It was his submission that if at all installment scheme be granted to the assessee.

5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Admittedly the assessee has not shown any financial difficulty in respect of the disputed demand. However, considering the facts in the present case and without going into the merits of the addition, insofar as the addition is in respect 3 Stay Petition No. 11 of 2020 (ITA No. 1383 of 2020) Shivraj Jayaram Hegde A.Y. 2015-16 of a deemed income on account of variation between the actual sale consideration paid by the assessee and the deemed sale consideration on the basis of the valuation report by the D.V.O., the assessee is granted an installment scheme of Rs. 5,00,000/- p.m. The first installment is to be paid on or before 15th March 2020 and subsequent installment on or before 15th of every month. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on the next date of hearing. If the assessee seeks any adjournment on the next date of hearing, the installments scheme granted to the assessee shall stand vacated automatically.

4. In the result, the stay petition is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in open Court on this 21st day of February 2020.

          Sd/-                                         sd/-
(ANIL CHATURVEDI)                                 (GEORGE MATHAN)
Accountant Member                                 Judicial Member

Pune; Dated : 21st February 2020.
Ankam

Copy of the Order is forwarded to :

1.    Assessee
2.    Respondent
3.    The Pr. CCIT Pune
4.    The Pr. CIT 2 Pune
5.    The Addl. CIT Range 4, Pune
6.    The Assessing Officer
7.    The D.R. ITAT Pune Bench „B‟
8.    Guard file

      True copy


                                                  By order


                                             Sr. Private Secretary
                                             ITAT Pune Bench, Pune
                                 4           Stay Petition No. 11 of 2020
                                                 (ITA No. 1383 of 2020)
                                                Shivraj Jayaram Hegde
                                                           A.Y. 2015-16



1    Draft dictated on                21.02.2020     Sr. PS/PS
2    Draft placed before author       21.02.2020     Sr. PS/PS
3    Draft proposed and placed
     before the second Member
4    Draft discussed/approved by
     second Member
5    Approved draft comes to the Sr. -02-2020        Sr. PS/PS
     PS/PS
6    Kept for pronouncement on                       Sr. PS/PS
7    Date of uploading of order                      Sr. PS/PS
8    File sent to Bench Clerk         -02-2020       Sr. PS/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