TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 722
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as raised the following grounds of appeal: - "1. The learned commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the additions made under section 56(2)(Vii) which is against the facts. 2. The addition confirmed is against the provisions of the Income Tax Act 3. The beneficial provision is read in a too rigid way so as to deny the benefit conferred by the Income Tax Act. 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) should have taken the date of payment as date of agreement instead of rejecting the appeal." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee files his return of income for AY 2015-16 on 22.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 35,77,520/-. As per the information received - provisions of s. 56(2)(vii) of the Act is to apply on the transac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order dated 30.03.2022 the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal with the following observations: - "6. The only issue in this appeal is addition of Rs. 14,56,750 u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. As per the facts on record, the assessee, along with one other person (his son), purchased land measuring 9 acres and 12 guntas at Unkal village, Hubli taluka, district Dharwad for Rs. 11,99,000. The purchase deed was registered on 14.07.2014. The stamp duty valuation of the property was Rs. 41,12,500. Thus, there was difference of Rs. 29,13,500. Subsequently, assessee filed his Income Tax Return (ITR). The ITR was not subjected to scrutiny assessment. Later on, on the basis of the information of differenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly in a case where the amount of consideration referred to therein, or a part thereof, has been paid by any mode other than cash on or before the date of agreement for the transfer of such immovable property." AO held that assessee's contention was incorrect and brought to tax the income of Rs. 14,56,750 (50% of 29,13,500). Hence this appeal. 7. Regarding ground no. 1, I find that the contention of assessee is incorrect because the date of purchase of the property, through a registered deed, was 14.07.2014. In view of this fact, the contention is rejected and ground no. 1 is dismissed. 7.1. Regarding ground no. 2, I find that AO has correctly interpreted the terms "date of agreement". As a result, I do not find any merit in assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kkar (son of the assessee), in which the AO has considered the contention of the son of the assessee and accepted the returned income where as in the case of the assessee the same AO has added Rs. 14,56,750/- 50% of (41,12,500 - 11,99,000) under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. 7. The learned D.R., on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the order passed in the case of the assessee and in the case of his son are different. Further, he submitted that the first payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- was made on 11.05.2009 and it was made to one Suresh Enterprises. Further, there was no payment made to Shejwadkar Builders Pvt. Ltd. on 31.07.2008 even though it was claimed in the agreement/ MOU that Rs. 1,00,000/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are not the same, the stamp duty value on the date of agreement may be taken for the purposes of this sub-clause: Provided further that the said proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of comsideration referred to therein, or a part thereof, has been paid by any mode other than cash on or before the date of the agreement for the transfer of such immovable property; ] Thus on plain reading of the above it is clear that first where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value on the date of agreement may be taken. Secondly, the amount of consideration or part thereof has been paid by any mode other than cas....