TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 1267
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s.20,89,083/- (Rs.78,16,448/- - Rs.57,27,365/-) being the difference in excess of 10% between sale value and stamp duty value in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts as emanating from the records are that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of construction and development of residential as well as commercial projects and reported turnover of Rs.7,01,53,106/- and shown net profit @ 10.65%. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO show caused as to why the difference in stamp duty value and sale value should not be added to the total income in terms of section 43CA of the Act. We note that the assessee neither attended nor filed any reply to the said show cause. The AO observed that there is no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....52500 4211350 341150 Baramati Ishswar Devashi 4115864 3500000 615864 Usha Birendra Indapure 3841105 3611400 229705 Vardhaman Uddhavrao Khutale 4176858 3615460 561398 Abhijeet Shrikrishana Kulkarni 4123500 4100250 23250 Amar Manohar Bhusnar 3978002 3500000 478002 TOTAL 110402722 102586274 7816448 4. On perusal of the above table, we find that there was difference between stamp duty value and sale value as received by the assessee to an extent of Rs.78,16,448/-. As we discussed above having no assistance from the assessee, the AO proceeded to add the said amount within the meaning of section 43CA of the Act and determined the total income of Rs.1,08,91,444/- (Ret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DVO is less than 10% applying the same in all fairness and justice, the CIT(A) restricted addition to an extent of Rs.20,89,083/- which is as under : Name of the buyers Stamp Duty Value Sales Value Difference in excess of 10% of Sales value. Difference in excess of 10% considered for 43CA addition Hemant Raknikath Shah 41,77,500 33,09,122 8,68,378 5,37,466 Kunal Prakash 41,15,864 31,67,500 19,48,364 16,31,614 Baramati Ishwar Devashi 41,15,864 35,00,000 6,15,864 2,65,864 Vardhaman Uddhavrao Khutale 41,76,858 36,15,460 5,61,398 1,99,852 Amar Manohar Bhusnar 39,78,002 35,00,000 4,78,002 1,28,002 Annie Thomas 59,48,000 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the assessee did not respond to the first notice issued by the AO and no response as such to the second notice as well. In spite of having many opportunities the assessee could not appear before the AO in support of its claim. He placed reliance on the orders of AO. 10. Having heard both the parties, we note that in para 4.3 of the assessment that the stamp value is Rs.11,04,02,722/- and the sale value is Rs.10,25,86,274/- giving rise to the difference at Rs.78,16,448/-. Admittedly, there was no response to first notice issued by the AO on 24- 09-2015 to the assessee in assessment proceedings. There was response to the second notice by the assessee wherein it appears filed certain details including GPA. Thereafter, we note that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 50C(2) and 50C(3) of the Act. We note that admittedly the AO find the difference between sale value and stamp duty value but, did not refer to DVO for determination of fair market value u/s. 50C(2) and 50C(3) of the Act but however he adopted the procedure contemplated u/s. 43CA of the Act wherein it explains the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of an asset is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government, the value adopted by such authority shall be deemed to be the full value of consideration for the purpose of profits and gains from transfer but however in our opinion is subject to the satisfaction the provisions contemplated in sub-section (2) of secti....