Tribunal deletes tax additions, stresses legislative intent, ground realities.

The tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the additions made under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act. It emphasized the importance of considering ground realities and legislative intent in applying deeming provisions, concluding that the additions were not sustainable. The tribunal noted the reduced guideline value by the State Government and the amendment to minimize hardships in real estate transactions, leading to the decision to delete the additions.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Addition due to the difference between the sale consideration and the guideline value of the property under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Applicability of the amendment to Section 56(2) made by Finance Act, 2018, retrospectively.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition due to the difference between the sale consideration and the guideline value of the property under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

The core issue in this case was the addition made by the AO due to the difference between the sale consideration of the property purchased by the assessee and the guideline value for stamp duty purposes. The AO observed that the assessee purchased vacant land for Rs. 3,51,12,000/-, while the guideline value was Rs. 3,64,15,000/-. Consequently, the AO invoked Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, which deems the difference between the sale consideration and the guideline value as income if it exceeds Rs. 50,000/-. The AO added Rs. 13,03,000/- to the assessee’s income, representing the difference.

The assessee argued that the guideline value was later revised downward by the State Government to Rs. 2,43,98,050/- and that the difference of Rs. 13,03,000/- was less than 5%, which should not be treated as income under the deeming fiction of Section 56(2). The assessee also requested the AO to refer the matter to the valuation cell, but the AO proceeded with the addition as the valuation report was not received by the time of assessment.

2. Applicability of the amendment to Section 56(2) made by Finance Act, 2018, retrospectively:

The assessee contended that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2018, which allows a difference of up to 5% between the guideline value and the sale consideration without deeming it as income, should be applied retrospectively. However, both the AO and the CIT(A) rejected this contention, stating that the amendment applies prospectively from 01.04.2019.

Upon appeal, the tribunal observed that the differential between the sale consideration and the guideline value was only 3.711%, less than 5%. It was noted that the State Government had reduced the guideline value in 2017, indicating that the market value was lower than the guideline value. The tribunal emphasized that Section 56(2)(vii) is a deeming provision creating artificial fiction, but it should not operate in a vacuum disregarding ground realities.

The tribunal also referred to the Finance Act, 2018, which amended Section 50C and 56(2) to minimize hardship in real estate transactions, allowing a 5% differential without deeming it as income. Although the amendment was applicable from AY 2019-20, the tribunal recognized the legislative intent to reduce hardships.

Considering the cumulative effect of these factors, the tribunal concluded that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were not sustainable. The tribunal ordered the deletion of the additions, emphasizing that the law should operate within the realm of realities to avoid absurdities and perversities.

Conclusion:

The tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, deleting the additions made under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, and emphasized the importance of considering ground realities and legislative intent in applying deeming provisions.

---