TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 80
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer, without appreciating that the said addition was made following provisions of the Section 56(2)(x) of the Act? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer, without appreciating that the assessee had not challenged the value of property adopted for auction before the stamp duty authorities and paid the stamp duty on value adopted by the stamp duty authorities? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of Co- operation and Registrar, Maharashtra State, Pune. Therefore, the true fair market value of the property was only Rs. 3,53,70,000 only and the stamp duty value is unduly high as it has not considered the actual condition and various factors affecting the property. The Assessing Officer ("AO") vide order dated 16/09/2022 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the fair market value as per the records available is Rs. 5,84,99,000, therefore the difference of Rs. 2,31,29,000 being the difference in the fair market value and the consideration of Rs. 3,53,70,000 was brought to tax under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 5. The learned CIT(A), vide impugne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied)" The appellant in his submission has placed reliance on the above judgment of the Supreme Court. 4.6 In view of the foregoing discussion it can be safely and judicially deduced, for the purpose of the case in hand that the value determined by the stamp valuation authority becomes untenable vis a vis value of the property fetched in an open public auction in the facts and circumstances of this specific case Also, respectfully following the ratio decidendi emanating from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Registrar of Assurances & Anr. appellants Versus ASL Vyapar Private Ltd. & Anr. Respondents (Supra); and also decisions of Hon'ble ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of Krishi Utpanna Bajar Samiti vs. DCIT (Supra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y being the successful bidder. In the present case, it cannot be disputed that the process of bidding was carried out under the supervision of a senior-level government functionary acting as a liquidator, and the property under consideration was purchased only pursuant to the e-tender floated by the aforesaid bank, which was also published in the local newspaper. Further, the assessee purchased the property at a price higher than the reserved price of Rs. 3,51,00,000 mentioned in the second e-tender notice dated 29/06/2019. However, the AO disregarded all the aforesaid factual aspects and considered the stamp duty value of Rs. 5,84,99,000 as the fair market value for computation of addition under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. In support of i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ected by the assessee by way of public auction fall within the purview of the Circular issued by Government of Maharashtra dated 30.06.2005 (supra) for the purposes of payment of stamp duty. In terms of the said Circular, the highest price in the sale auction is considered to be the fair market value for the purposes of payment of stamp duty. This would mean that the consideration stated in the sale-deed is to be accepted as the fair market value for the purposes of payment of stamp duty in the present case and not the prices worked out as per the ready recknoer. Ostensibly, in such a situation the invoking section 50C of the Act for the purposes of substituting the full value of consideration in order to compute the capital gain would fail....