AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 178
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....G. Jasnani ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. The instant batch of six cross-appeals for assessment year 2016-17 involves three assessees S/Shri Kanayalal Chetandas Manwani, Dinesh and Vinod Kanayalal Manwani. These three assessees' as many appeals ITA.Nos.2066 to 2068/PUN./2019 with Revenue's and cross appeals ITA Nos.15, 16 and 14/PUN/2020 arise against the CIT(A)-1, Nashik's separate orders, all dated 15.10.2019, passed in case nos. NSK/CIT(A)-1/681/2018-19, NSK/CIT(A)-1/677/2018-19 and NSK/CIT(A)-1/675/2018-19 [taxpayer-wise], respectively, involving proceedings us/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 2. Heard all these three assessees represented by Shri Sanket Joshi (AR) and the department through Shri M.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e relevant previous year. The legislature has further inserted four proviso(es), inter alia, relating rigor of this provision is an instance of such difference when the agreement date being earlier than the sale deed with a pre-condition of mode of payment as a mandatory condition, applicability of sec.50C as well as exemption involving the specified categories, respectively, which would be dealt with in succeeding paragraphs. 4. We take note of the rival contentions first of all. Mr. Joshi has filed a detailed note of the assessees written arguments/additional grounds reading as under : 5. The Revenue has placed strong reliance on the Assessing Officer's action adopting the sale price of the land as per the "Ready Reckoner" for F.Y. 2015....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i] dated 09.09.2015, their application before the Collector, stamps seeking registration of the foregoing agreement on 27.01.2016 and the final decision by him u/secs.33 with 39 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958; respectively. He further stated that detailing of all these facts forms sufficient material to hold that the land in question was never actually "received" in the assessment year before us i.e., 2016-17. 5.2 These assessees arguments are found to be without any merit. It emerges during the course of hearing that these assessees' are engaged in the land development business wherein no books or records have been produced for the period starting from the year 1997 to 2014 which could suggest that such an agreement had ever taken place am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hare(s) of 12% and 11% (supra). The remaining of 66% stake inter alia went to S/Shri Praveenchandra Walchand Shah, Rajendra R Shah and Shri Shailesh R Shah to the extent of 37.5%, 25% and 3.5%; respectively, as per the agreement herein registered on 06.02.2016. It is further evident that although these assessees' had put the date on the said agreement as on 12.08.1997, there is no positive finding by the learned stamp authorities after detailed inquiry(ies) agreeing with their stand. All what the learned stamp collector has done his duty is to impound the aforesaid agreement and compound the same after recovering the corresponding stamp duty. We thus are of the view that provisions of income tax would be deemed to have been having overridin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve gone against the assessees or no sale deed had been executed in their favour would not amount to them having not actually "received" the land in issue once they have received the corresponding exact compensation of their respective shares under the land acquisition law. Faced with the situation, we find merit in the Revenue's contentions that the Assessing Officer had rightly invoked sec.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act in the given facts and circumstances before us. The CIT(A)'s findings treating the agreement dt 12.08.1997 in absence of any corroborative evidence stand reversed. 6. Next comes equally important aspect of applicability of first and second proviso to sec.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act that in case the dates of sale deed and date of ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leged additional compensation as well as sale price on 04.10.2014 which has not been found to have been factually disputed even on 09.09.2015 (Bharna Pavati) as well as 06.02.2016 [registration of the alleged agreement dated 12.08.1997], respectively. This is also not the Revenue's case that these assessees' or their co-vendees had not made the said payments as on 04.10.2014 by way of compensation of Rs.42 lakhs by prescribed mode. Faced with the situation, we direct the learned Assessing Officer to adopt stamp price of the land in issue in S.No.883/1/1, Nashik as on 04.10.2014 as the actual sale price in light of sec.56(2)(vii)(b) read with 1st and 2nd proviso therein than taking the fair market value as per the ready reckoner in issue (su....