Sections 50C and 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) inapplicable where prior agreement, cheque payments; Section 263 revision and additions deleted

ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the conditions for invoking s.50C or s.56(vii)(b)(ii) were not satisfied, as a valid agreement fixing consideration for the immovable property existed as on 28.06.2007 and part of the consideration had been paid through account payee cheques in 2007. The Tribunal rejected the CIT(A)'s reasoning that substantial consideration and possession were not transferred on the agreement date, finding it contrary to the statutory scheme. Consequently, the addition made by the AO on the basis of the higher SRO value was deleted, and the revisionary action under s.263 failed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the difference between the stamp duty value and the declared purchase consideration of immovable property is taxable as "income from other sources" under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) when there exists an earlier agreement fixing consideration and part of the consideration was paid by account payee cheque on the date of such agreement.

1.2 Whether, for applying the first and second provisos to section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) (pari materia with section 50C provisos), it is a legal requirement that substantial consideration must be paid and possession delivered on the date of agreement, in addition to payment of part consideration through banking channels.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 & 2: Taxability of difference under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) and applicability of date-of-agreement provisos

Legal framework

2.1 The judgment reproduces and examines section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) (corresponding in structure to section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii)) including its provisos, particularly:

- First proviso: where date of agreement fixing consideration and date of registration differ, stamp duty value as on date of agreement may be taken.

- Second proviso: the first proviso applies only where consideration, or part thereof, has been paid by account payee cheque, account payee bank draft, electronic clearing system, or prescribed electronic mode on or before the date of the agreement.

2.2 Section 50C(1) and its first and second provisos are also set out, providing an analogous rule that where agreement date and registration date differ, the stamp duty value on the agreement date may be taken, subject to part consideration being received through specified banking modes on or before the date of agreement.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.3 The Tribunal notes that the assessee entered into an agreement for purchase of immovable property on 28.06.2007, fixing the consideration, and paid Rs. 1,00,000/- through banking channel in 2007 as part of such consideration.

2.4 The Assessing Officer invoked section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) on the basis that the purchase consideration, as finally paid at the time of registration on 05.03.2014, was less than the stamp duty (Jantri) value, and assessed the difference as income from other sources.

2.5 The appellate authority rejected the assessee's argument that stamp duty value as on 28.06.2007 should be adopted, reasoning that:

- Substantial purchase consideration was not paid on 28.06.2007; and

- Possession of the property was not handed over on that date;

and therefore concluded that transfer took place only on 05.03.2014 and the stamp duty value on the date of registration applied.

2.6 The Tribunal examines the statutory text of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) / section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) and section 50C, emphasizing that the provisos require only:

- The existence of an agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property; and

- Payment of consideration, or a part thereof, by specified banking modes on or before the date of agreement.

2.7 The Tribunal finds that there is no statutory requirement that "substantial purchase consideration" be paid, or that possession be handed over, on the date of agreement for the assessee to avail the benefit of taking stamp duty value as on the date of the agreement.

2.8 Therefore, the reasoning of the appellate authority, which introduced additional conditions of substantial payment and delivery of possession, is held to be contrary to the express provisions of the Act.

2.9 On the admitted facts that:

- An agreement fixing consideration was executed on 28.06.2007; and

- A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid through account payee cheque/banking channel on or before that date;

the Tribunal holds that, in terms of the provisos to section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) read with the analogous provisos to section 50C, the stamp duty value on the date of agreement (28.06.2007) is to be adopted, not the value as on the date of registration (05.03.2014).

2.10 Once the stamp duty value as on 28.06.2007 is adopted, the Tribunal concludes that the conditions for making an addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) / section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) are not satisfied on the facts of the case.

Conclusions

2.11 The provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) and section 50C are not attracted where an earlier agreement fixing consideration exists and part of the consideration has been paid through prescribed banking modes on or before the date of such agreement; in such a case, the stamp duty value as on the date of agreement, and not the date of registration, is relevant.

2.12 The additional conditions of "substantial purchase consideration" being paid and "possession" being handed over on the agreement date, as applied by the appellate authority, have no foundation in the statutory text and are legally unsustainable.

2.13 The addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) on account of the difference of Rs. 41,40,000/- between stamp duty value and declared consideration is deleted, and the assessee's appeal is allowed.

---