Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. So far as the merit of the valuation report is concerned, he submitted that as per the valuation report (excluding serial No.22 as it was transferred on 16.09.2013) the stamp duty valuation is Rs.28,05,78,000/- as on 03.05.2014 for the lands transferred. However, the actual consideration for the same is Rs.27,58,86,733/- and the variation is merely 1.70% which is within the safe harbour limits of 10% as per first proviso to section 43CA(1).

14. Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sai Bhargavanath Infra vs. ACIT vide ITA Nos.1332/PUN/2019 vide order dated 17.08.2022 for assessment year 2015-16, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that the application of first proviso to section 43CA of the Act is having retrospective effect.

However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved."

31. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, he submitted that the auction was allotted to the assessee on 05.03.2015 and an agreement to sell with the purchaser was entered into on 23.11.2012 (preliminary) and on 03.12.2012 (final). The sale certificate by the auctioneer was issued on 03.12.2012 and the property's highest bid of the auction depicts fair market value of the property. He submitted that the highest bid of the assessee was Rs.28,83,34,349/- and the actual sale consideration is Rs.29,10,37,733/- and the same is higher than the fair market value. Therefore, the provisions of section 43CA of the Act do not apply. For the above proposition, he relied on the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Krishi Utpanna Bazar Samittee vs. DCIT vide ITA No.2043/PUN/2012 order dated 20.03.2014. Relying on various other decisions he submitted that the order passed u/s 263 by the Ld. PCIT is not justified and is liable to be set aside.

33. Referring to the decision of Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Spytech Buildcon vs. ACIT reported in (2021) 190 ITD 325 (Jaipur-Trib.), he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that where the assessee entered into an agreement for sale of flats with customer prior to 01.04.2013, however, sale deeds were executed after 01.04.2013 provisions of section 43CA will be applicable and, merely because an agreement had taken place prior to 01.04.2013 it would not take away the transaction from the ambit of provisions of section 43CA which were applicable for assessment year 2014-15 under consideration.

37. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his rejoinder submitted that in Jankhit Chandulal Prajapati (supra), incriminating digital data was seized reflecting unsecured loans / advances of 235.56 crores from Kolkata-based companies, which were independently found to be shell entities. Statements of entry operators and third-party enquiries clearly established the accommodation entry nature of transactions. However, in the present case, the seized documents comprise a registered Sale Deed, Index II, Agreement to Sale and all the documents relating to auctioned properties, all of which are disclosed documents and duly reflected in the books of account and supported by banking channel payments. The only difference is a minor variation of 1.70% in valuation, which is well within the statutory safe harbour tolerance under section 43CA. No evidence whatsoever of unaccounted cash, on-money, or bogus entries has been found. Thus, unlike Jankhit's case (supra), where seized material directly established undisclosed income, in the present case, the seized material is non-incriminating and only corroborates disclosed transactions. Therefore the reliance placed by Revenue on Jankhit Chandulal Prajapati (supra) is misplaced, and the ratio of the said case does not apply to the facts of the present case. So far as the decision in the case of Kapil Mehta (supra) of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal is concerned, he submitted that subsequent to the said decision, the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal at Delhi in various decisions have held that revision order passed u/s 263 is liable to be quashed when the same has been passed after obtaining prior approval of the JCIT/Addl. CIT u/s 153D of the I.T. Act, 1961.