TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 1417
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sold prior to 31.03.2013 under allotment letters dated 06.09.2009 and 27.12.2012, which was prior to introduction of the provisions of section 43CA of the Act which was applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2013, and therefore, the provisions u/s 43CA were not applicable. 2. The Learned CIT(Appeals) has failed to consider the fact that the Ready Reckoner rates are for ready possession shops and not for shops under construction and the marginal difference being less than 5% between the Ready Reckoner rates and the Sale consideration in respect of impugned shop's ought to be ignored. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is deriving income from carrying on business of builders developers and realtors. In the assessment order, AO note....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....construction, which will have a much lower value than ready shops". 4. AO further noted assessees submissions as under:- The AR has filed evidences such as copy of allotment letters, ledger copies of the buyer's account, extracts of bank account statement showing receipt of first payment from the buyer of property, market of value of the flats/shops on the date of receipt of first payment from buyer in support of his claim. Further, the AR has relied upon the judgement by the honourable ITAT Mumbai in the case of Krishna Enterprises vs.ACIT. However, this case law refers to section 50C while the provision of the Act under consideration is section 43CA and hence, is not applicable to the case of the assessee. 5. However, A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly the formality of the registration that took place in the year under consideration. Hence, it is stated that, since, the Section 43CA which came on the statute book only from A.Y.2014- 15, hence, the same cannot be applied in the case of the appellant. Whereas, according to the AO, the properties were registered in A.Y.2014-15 (i.e. F.Y.2013- 14) and hence, the sale was completed only in the relevant year A.Y.2014-15 and hence, the provisions of section 43CA are indeed applicable to the appellant. The Id. AR further could not cogently explain as to how given the fact of registration in the relevant F.Y.2013-14 (i.e. A.Y.2014-15), can it be said that the sale was completed earlier? As observed above, in the earlier years some paym....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal before the ITAT. 8. I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. I find that in this case, assessee has submitted before the AO that allotment letters and some part of the payments were received much earlier. Hence, the provision of section 43CA cannot be invoked. The AO has accepted the said submissions except the two flats/shops for which, he found that the market value as per the ready recokner rates differed and hence, he made the addition of Rs. 4,33,575/- and Rs.3,92,754/-. 9. Upon assessee's appeal, Ld.CIT(A) has held that he was of the opinion that invariably the stamp value date on registration has to be adopted and hence, he was upholding the order of the AO. I find that this is quiet contrary to what the AO has ....