2023 (6) TMI 35

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act is bad in law and may be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to the above and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the Appellant mentions that the date of agreement was inadvertently stated as 13.07.2009 instead of 08.10.2009 before the learned assessing officer and the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Since the payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the date of agreement (i.e. 08.10.2009) is the same, the benefit of the second proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act is available and the addition of Rs. 9,88,343/(50% of Rs. 19,76,686/) under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act is not tenable Thus, the said addition may be deleted. 3. Without prejudice to the above and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,88,343/(50% of Rs. 19,76,686/) under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act on the observation that since the first payment of Rs. 2,00,000/by way of cheque was made on 08.10.2009 which was subsequent to the date of agreement i.c. 13.07.2009 the benefit of the second proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act is not avai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... In compliance to the notice, the Ld. AR of the assessee has filed the details on 12.02.2021 and furnished copy of purchase deed and some copies of payment proofs and the assessee has not filed other details as per the questioner. 3. Further, the AO has issued a show cause notice and it was duly complied by the assessee. The AO on perusal of details and purchase agreement found that the assessee has purchased a property from HDIL at an agreed price of Rs.32,97,500/- and got registered in the year 2017 at market value of Rs. 52,74,186/- and the stamp valuation and registration fee of Rs. 2,94,000/- was paid. Further the AO has observed that the assessee has not furnished bank account details including the foreign bank account highlighting the payments relating to purchase of property and also the initial agreement with the seller was not produced. Finally the AO has made an addition u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act being the difference in value of property which worked out to Rs.19,76,686/- and assessed the total income of Rs. 29,27,030/- and passed order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 143(3A)&143(3B) of the Act dated 18.03.2021. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3/1600003581 100035 15,400 9 18.05.2013 1100/2013/1600003580 633690 67,477 10 09.09.2017 1100/2017/160005070 207446 36,600 11 09.09.2017 1100/2017/1600005069 207446 22,247 12 09.09.2017 1100/2017/1600005068 033930 14,353 13 09.09.2017 1100/2017/1600005066 033930 37,906 14 09.09.2017 1100/2017/1600005067 033930 6,588     Total   14,32,649 The above receipts were duly submitted to the learned assessing officer. As Ms/HDIL (seller) is under liquidation and its owners are in judicial/police custody and not available we are trying to arrange more receipts for payments made. 1. The officer has issued order under section 56(2)(x) the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is effective from 01.04.2017, as the property is purchased in 2009 the aforesaid section does not apply to the assessee. Since the initial transaction started in 2009. 2 Screen shot of submissions made as per the e-filing website is attached for ready reference. 3 In view of the above, we kindly pray that kindly delete the additions made by the Learned Assessing officer and also consequential interest and initiation of penalty proceedings 7. I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Ac, therefore, it is imperative to refer to the provisions of sec. 56(2)(x) which read as under: "Income from other sources. 4356. (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1) the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources "namely:- x) on or after the 1st day of April 2017,- any sum of money, without consideration the aggregate value of which (a) exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the whole of the aggregate value of such sum; (b) any immovable property.- (A) without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property; for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration: (B) Following item (B) shall be su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed to therein, or a part thereof, has been paid by way of an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft or by use of electronic clearing system through a bank account, on or before the date of agreement for transfer of such immovable property. In the instant case, it is noted that the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same. The date of agreement as submitted by the appellant is 13-07-2009 whereas purchase deed was registered on 14-07- 2017. However, from the details of payments given in a tabular Form in para 6 (supra)it is seen that the first payment of Rs2,00,000/- by way of cheque has been made on 08-10-2009 vide cheque no. 288218. This date i.e. 08-10-2009 is subsequent to the date of agreement i.e. 13-07-2009 therefore as per second proviso to section 56(2)(x) of the Act, the appellant's claim is not allowable. However, as the appellant is only 50% owner of the property purchased, only 50% of the difference in the stamp duty value and purchase consideration is to be added in the hands of the appellant. Thus, the addition of Rs. 19,76,686/- made by the AO is reduc....