TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 923
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the time when "Agreement to sell" was entered into was Rs. 3,11,16,000/- Hence, the assessing officer proposed to assess the difference between the stamp value at the time of entering agreement to sell and actual consideration shown purchase agreement as income of the assessee u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessee submitted that the sale was a distress sale by the seller since the seller had lost original title deeds of the property. Accordingly, the assessee disputed the value determined by the stamp authority and accordingly opted for a reference to District valuation officer for determination of Fair Market Value (FMV) of the flat. Since the report of DVO was not received by the due date prescribed for completion of assessment, the A.O. assessed the difference of Rs. 78,16,000/- (Rs. 3,11,16,000/- (-) Rs. 2,33,00,000/-) as income of the assessee u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Subsequently, upon receipt of the DVO valuation, who had valued the property at Rs. 2,68,86,400/-, the assessing officer passed a rectification order u/s 154 of the Act and accordingly, reduced the addition to Rs. 35,86,400/- (Rs. 2,68,86,400/- (- ) Rs. 2,33,00,000/-). 3. The assessee challenged th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....48,92,800/- for special amenities / facilities. It is the contention that there is no basis for such an addition of 6% to the FMV of the flat and at best, the FMV of the flat including the 2 covered car parks should have been taken at Rs. 2,53,92,800/- and not Rs. 2,68,86,400/- . Finally, it is also contended by the appellant that the addition made u/s.56(2)(viib) of the Act, cannot stand since, the difference between the FMV estimated by the DVO and the actual consideration paid is less than 15% when considered on the basis of the FMV after deducting the 6% made on account of special amenities / facilities. 5.2 I have gone through the final valuation report of the DVO dated 02.01.2019. In the said valuation report, the DVO has stated that he has taken the guidance rate issued by the local authority as well as comparable sale instances of other properties falling within the vicinity as the basis for valuation of the property purchased by the appellant. It has been stated in the valuation report of the DVO that most transactions relating to other properties in the vicinity are at par with guidance value with lesser value of registration to the extent of 12%. Hence, the DVO adopted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....S. Sanjay (HUF) Vs. ITO (ITA No.1141/Bang/2018 dated 4.5.2018) (c) M/s. John Fowler (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No.7545/Mum/2014 dated 25.1.2017). (d) Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala Vs. DCIT (ITA No.2351/KOL/2017 dated 9.8.2019) 6. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the Parliament itself has inserted third proviso in Section 50C(1) of the Act, as per which, if the difference between stamp value and the actual consideration is 5% or less the same shall be ignored w.e.f. 1.4.2019. The limit of 5% has been increased to 10% w.e.f. 1.4.2021. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the effect of these amendments has been considered by the Kolkata Bench of Tribunal in the case of Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala (supra) and it has been held that the third proviso to section 50C should be treated as curative in nature and will apply retrospectively from 1.4.2003 i.e. from the date of insertion of section 50C in the Statute. The Ld. A.R. submitted that even prior to the introduction of third proviso to section 50C(1) of the Act, the coordinate benches in other cases referred above has held that difference of less than 10% shall be ignored. In this regard, the Ld. A.R. invited our attention to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below and the case law relied on. Considering the entire facts of the assessee's case, the submissions of the assessee cannot be ignored. The sale consideration of these two plots sold on the same day though be separated agreements, is more than the stamp duty valuation by Rs. 3,00,00,000/-. Even assuming for a movement that the sale consideration in respect of Plot in survey No. 22 and 42 is less than the stamp valuation it is Rs. 33,48,284/- which is less than 10% of the stamp duty valuation of the said plot. Therefore, in view of the ratio of the decisions relied on by the assessee, the assessee should succeeded in its appeal. The Jaipur Bench in the case of Smt. Sita Bai Ketan (Supra) held as under:- 4. 2 "We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record We find that the Hon'ble coordinate Bench in ITA No. 1.543/PN/2007 in the case of Rahul Constructions Vs. DCIT (Supra) has held as under:- "We find that the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Assit. vs. Harpreet Hotels (P) LTd. Vide ITA No. 1156- 1160/Pn/2007 and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee had dismissed ....