TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 842
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion to the extent of Rs.1,16.51,000%- made u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) of the I.T. Act 1961, due to difference between the actual purchase consideration of 3 N.A. plots of land situated at village Navghar, Taluka Vasai, Dist. Palghar, by adopting the value determined by the Asst. Valuation officer, Thane, vide order dt. 31.10.2017, which substantially ignored the various reasons. determining the actual purchase consideration and therefore the addition was not justified. 3. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in not considering the sum of Rs.66,00,000/- paid in cash for purchase of plots at village Navghar, Taluka Vasai, Dist. Palghar, as part of actual purchase consideration for working out the addition u/s 56(2)(vi)(b(i) of the I.T. Act 1961 and therefore the addition to that extent was not appropriate. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case that the assessee, an individual, was engaged in the business of undertaking small civil construction work. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on 16/11/2015, declaring total income of Rs.11,43,220/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has noted that the assessee had shown to have income from salary and income from house property. The return of in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... calling for the remand report from the Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee of non-applicability of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the fair market value of the plots determined by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) at Rs.1,25,51,000/- and after subtracting the value of Rs.9 lakh declared by the assessee in the registered agreement, sustained the difference amount of Rs.1,16,51,000/- as a addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The contention of giving credit of Rs.66 lakhs while determining addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) was also rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. Before u/s the assessee filed a paper book containing pages 1 to 205 inter alia, copy of submissions filed before the Ld. CIT(A), copy of remand report, copy of purchase deed etc. 4. We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. 4.1 In ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged applicability of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, claiming that provision is not applicable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the assessee were stock in trade and thus upheld the action of Assessing Officer of property being capital asset in the hands of the assessee. 4.4 Before us, though the assessee contested that plots were purchased for further sale to Sh Rajeev Y Patil, and therefore same were stock in trade in the hands of the assessee. The facts of the case of the assessee, shows that prior to this transaction of purchase, he was never engaged in trading of plots of land. This was an isolated transaction of purchase. Whether any transaction of sale (purchase) will fall under the head 'profit and gains' of the business of profession or under the head 'capital gain', depends on overall appreciation of multiple factors including intention of holding, frequency of transactions, volume of transactions, treatment in books of accounts etc. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT (Central), Calcutta v. Associated Industrial Development Company (P) Ltd. (82 ITR 586) observed that whether a particular holding of shares is by way of investment or forms part of the stock-in-trade, is a matter within the knowledge of the assessee, when holds the share and it should, in normal circumstances, be in p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re u/s the Ld. counsel of the assessee assailed that the sale instances relied upon by the Ld. Departmental Valuer for determining the fair market value of plots are not correct, in view of following: (a) the plot in reference were encroached by slum dwellers and unauthorized 'chawls' ( hutments) were constructed on the land including a "Sulabh Toilet" and for vacating of those unauthorised encroacher and demolishing the illegal construction of 'chawls', the assessee would be required to incur substantial expenditure, and therefore valuation based on sale instances are not comparable with the lands acquired by the assessee. (b) The concerned plots had incumberance of one 'Juhi Vikas Vartak', whose name is recorded in the column 'other rights' of the 7/12 extracts, which forms part of the registered purchase agreement, but the Departmental Valuation Officer did not take into consideration this incumberance of the property. (c) The stamp duty ready recknor rates does not denote the correct market value of the area because the ready recknor rates of the plots in reference have gone up more than twice from calendar year 2011 to 2014 whereas capital gain index has changed from 7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rty is surrounded by Flats and Buildings i.e. Eastern side by Vartak College and Andy Burger building. Western side by Vartak Engineering College. Northern side by Sulabh toilet etc. and Southern side by Engineering College road. All requisite amenities are available in the vicinity of the subject property and is located in developed location." 9.1 The Ld. Departmental Valuer has relied on for instances of the sale happened in the proximate period, but there is no remark, whether those lands were also subjected to encroachment. If those lands were not subjected to encroachment, then he is required to consider impact of adverse possession by the encroacher on the land of the assessee and corresponding impact on the value of the property. During the course of the hearing, the Ld. DR also expressed his inability to verify or confirm this fact readily. In the circumstances, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for verification from the Ld. Departmental Valuation Officer and consider the impact of encroachment on the land, if not already considered in the valuation report dated 31/10/2017. The ground of the appeal of the assessee i....