TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 450
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that (rectification) was carried out vide order dt. 9th April 2019 whereby the addition was reduced from Rs. 23,57,085/- to Rs. 5,30,791/- by the assessing officer and as such the difference between the purchase value and the circle rate came down to less than 10% tolerance band which does not invite the invocation of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b). 4. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 5. That the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)Officer is arbitrary, opposed to the facts of the case and thus untenable. 3. Ground No. 1 was not pressed during the course of hearing, hence the same is dismissed as not pressed. 4. In Ground No. 2 & 3, the Ld. AR submitted that the AO has since passed the rectification order whereby the difference between the purchase value and the Circle Rate has come down to less than 10% and therefore the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) r/w section 50C cannot be attracted. 5. In this case, our reference was draw to the order so passed by the AO under section 154 /155(15) r.w.s 56(2)(vi)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the DVO, the revised computation of the assessee's income tax liability is computed as under: Assessed Income u/s 143(3) Rs. 1,44,95,850/- Less: Addition u/s 56(2)|vii)(b) made into the assessment order Rs. 23,57,085/- Add: Addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) after receipt of Valuation report of Valuation Officer (i.e. 1,05,05,791 - 99,75,000) Rs. 5,30,791/- Revised Assessed income Rs. 1,26,69,516/- Tax on above Rs. 35,15,296 1- Surcharge Rs. 4,21,836/- Edu. Cess. Rs. 1,18,114/- Total Tax Rs. 40,55,246/- Intt. u/s 234B Rs. 2,48,601/- Intt. u/s 234C Rs. 52,898/- Total Tax Payable Rs. 43,56,745/- Less: prepaid taxes Rs. 40,15,527/- Add: Refund already issued Rs. 7,910/- Balance payable Rs. 3,49,128/- Demand of Rs. 8,45,501/- (i.e. 11,94,629 - 3,49,128) taken to remission account." 6 It was further submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of various Coordinate Benches and copies thereof were placed as part of assessee's paper-book. 7. The Ld. DR is heard who has relied on the order of the lower authorities. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. We find that in the instant case, the diff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew of the well settled legal position to the effect that a curative amendment to avoid unintended consequences is to be treated as retrospective in nature even though it may not state so specifically, the insertion of second proviso must be given retrospective effect from the point of time when the related legal provision was introduced". Referring to this decision, and extensively reproducing from the same, including the portion extracted above, Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of CIT v. Ansal Landmark Township (P.) Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 45/234 Taxman 825/377 ITR 635 (Delhi), has approved this approach and observed that "the Court is of the view that the above reasoning of the Agra Bench of ITAT as regards the rationale behind the insertion of the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and its conclusion that the said proviso is declaratory and curative and has retrospective effect from 1st April 2005, merits acceptance". The same was the path followed by another bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dharamashibhai Sonani v. Asstt. CIT [2016] 75 taxmann.com 141/161 ITD 627 which has been approved by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en the sale consideration is less than the stamp duty valuation, the sale consideration is to be treated as understated. This assumption is, however, laid to rest when the variations between the stated consideration and the stamp duty valuation figure are treated as explained. The insertion of the third proviso to Section 50C(1) provides for this tolerance band with respect to a certain degree of variations between the stamp duty valuation and the stated consideration of an immovable property. In other words, as long as the variations are within the permissible limits, the anti-avoidance provisions of Section 50C do not come into play. As we have noted earlier, the CBDT itself accepts that there could be various bonafide reasons explaining the small variations between the sale consideration of immovable property as disclosed by the assessee vis-à-vis the stamp duty valuation for the said immovable property. Obviously, therefore, disturbing the actual sale consideration, for the purpose of computing capital gains, and adopting a notional figure, for that purpose, will not be justified in such cases. On a conceptual note, an estimation of market price is an estimation neverthe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation," was as much valid in 2003 as it is in 2021. There is no variation in the material facts in this respect in 2021 vis-à-vis the material facts in 2003. What holds good in 2021 was also good in 2003. If variations up to 10% need to be tolerated and need not be probed further, under section 50C, in 2021, there were no good reasons to probe such variations, under section 50C, in the earlier periods as well. We are, therefore, satisfied that the amendment in the scheme of Section 50 C(1), by inserting the third proviso thereto and by enhancing the tolerance band for variations between the stated sale consideration vis-à-vis stamp duty valuation to 10%, are curative in nature, and, therefore, these provisions, even though stated to be prospective, must be held to relate back to the date when the related statutory provision of Section 50C, i.e. 1st April 2003. In plain words, what is means is that even if the valuation of a property, for the purpose of stamp duty valuation, is 10% more than the stated sale consideration, the stated sale consideration will be accepted at the face value and the anti-avoidance provisions under section 50C will not be invoked. 8. Once l....