TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 802
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055194154(1), dated 14.09.2023 & 17.08.2023; respectively, both for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The issue involved in the two appeals is identical. Both parties are co-owners of the same property acquired and their shares in the property is also identical. Therefore, these two appeals were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of Pooja Dipen Joshi in ITA No. 856/Ahd/2023 is taken as lead case. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 26.08.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 8,41,950/-. Subsequently, an information was received by the AO from the Directorate of I&CI, Ahmedabad that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the entire addition of Rs. 44,78,650/- despite of the facts that the assessee has already shown her share in purchase cost of Rs. 15,00,000/- in return of income filed which required to be allowed. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 44,78,650/- made u/s 56(2)(vii) (b) of the I.T.Act, despite of fact that provision of section 56(2)(vii) (b) brought in to statue book by the Finance Act 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 hence not applicable to A.Y.2012-13. 4. The appellant craves to leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground/s of appeal on or before hearing of the appeal." 5. Shri A. K. Khandelwal, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that no proper compliance was made before the AO, hence, the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and considering the submissions of the assessee had confirmed the addition. The ld. DR further submitted that the provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act was amended w.e.f. 01.04.2014 and as per the amended provision the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual consideration was liable to be treated as 'income from other sources' w.e.f. 01.04.2014. He contended that though this amendment was effective from A.Y. 2014-15, this was clarificatory in nature and had retrospective effect. As regarding addition u/s. 69 of the Act, the ld. DR submitted that the matter may be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for allowing another opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of investment. 7. We have considered the submis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is not found applicable in this case. This provision was amended by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 whereby the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual sale consideration was made liable for addition as 'income from other sources'. The Ld. DR has contended that this amendment was clarificatory in nature and, therefore, it should be made applicable for this preceding year as well. It is found from the Memorandum explaining the provision in Finance Act, 2013 that the amendment to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act was not clarificatory in nature. The said memorandum reads as under: "The existing provisions of sub clause (b) of clause (vii) of sub-section (2) of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on or before the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of such immovable property. This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2014 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2014-15 and subsequent assessment years. [Clause 9]" 9. It has been explicitly mentioned in the Memorandum that the existing provision was applicable to immovable property received without consideration only and that it did not cover cases of inadequate consideration. In order to include the cases of inadequate consideration, the provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act was amended with effect from 01.04.2014. It is categorically mentioned that this amendment was effective from 01.04.2014....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified confirming the addition of Rs. 29,78,650/- u/s 50C r.w.s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 29,78,650/ - made u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T .Act, despite of fact that provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) brought in to statue book by the Finance Act 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 hence not applicable to A.Y. 2012-13. 3. The appellant craves to leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground/s of appeal on or before hearing of the appeal." 13. The issue involved in the case of Ashokkumar C. Joshi is exactly identical with the case of Pooja Dipen Joshi. Sh. Ashokkumar C. Joshi is also the co-owner having 11.11% share in t....