https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461721 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461721 Validity of order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) as barred by limitation - HELD THAT:- DRP has held that since Form 35A has not been signed by the assessee within 30 days from the date of draft assessment order, then objections are not maintainable. The ld. DRP has refused to take the scanned copy of Form No. 35A which was furnished before it. DRP once held objection is not maintainable, then same should have been intimated to the assessee and to the ld. AO in time and then ld. AO would pass the final assessment order within time and assessee would have sought remedy u/s. 250 before the ld. CIT (A). But here the ld. DRP has passed the direction taking into consideration all the objections raised by the assessee after giving all the opportunity to the assessee and has given categorical finding and direction to the ld. AO. Thus, under these circumstances, we cannot hold that final assessment order is barred by limitation. Accordingly, ground No. 1 & 5 as raised by the assessee rejected. Difference between the fair market value and the actual consideration added u/s. 56(2)(vii) - As argued Section 56(2)(vii) was brought in the statute for the specific purpose of curbing bogus capital building and money laundering transaction and it is an anti-abuse provision - HELD THAT:- Section 56(2)(vii)(b) provides that certain income shall be chargeable to income tax under the head 'income from other sources' and clause vii read with sub-clause 'b' provides that where an individual replaced in any previous year any immovable property for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding Rs. 50,000/- then the stamp value of such property which exceeds its consideration is deemed to be income of the assessee. The purposive construction can only be resorted to when there is ambiguity or the contradiction in two provisions for the same statute. Here, no such ambiguity or contradiction is there nor has been pointed out before us. A Court of law has nothing to do with reasonable or unreasonableness of a provision of a statute except as it may hold in interpreting what the legislature has clearly stated. If the language of the statute envisages only one meaning then it must be continued to mean and intended what it has been clearly expressed. Accordingly, the contention raised by the ld. counsel cannot be accepted. Here in this case we cannot resort to purposive construction to see in this case, whether there was any intent for tax evasion or the transaction is for money laundering or tackling the menace of black money etc. The deeming provision gets attracted when the conditions mentioned in the section are attracted on the facts of the case. Accordingly, the contention raised by the ld. Counsel is rejected. Addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) - We agree with the contention of the ld. Counsel that if the difference is less than 10% between fair market value and the sale consideration shown, then no addition should be made. This is so because third proviso to Section 56(2)(vii) provides reference to Section 50C for determining the valuation of the property of valuation officer. The third proviso to Section 50C provides that where the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority does not exceed 10% of the consideration received shall be taken as full value consideration i.e. if the difference is less than 10%, the same can be taken as share market value. Though this provision has been brought in the statute w.e.f. 01/04/2019, however, Courts have held that the same is beneficial provision, therefore, benefit should be given with retrospective effect. Thus, we hold that if the difference between the actual sale consideration & FMV determined by the valuation officer is less than 10%, then no addition should be made u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b). Valuation arrived by the DVO - HELD THAT:- DVO has only taken the average of two sale instances to arrive at the valuation of Rs. 6,65,90,250/-, but in its annexure he has taken average of three sale properties in the same vicinity. Thus, contention raised by the ld. Counsel that from DVO's report if the correct figures are taken of all the comparable sales instances, the average valuation of the property would be Rs. 6.54 Crores which is admittedly less than 10% of the actual sale consideration and 10 % difference if added comes to Rs. 6,65,50,000/-. Accordingly, on this ground, addition is directed to be deleted. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 29 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530