2024 (12) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of income on 03.08.2017 by declaring a total income of Rs. 12,14,280/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and refund of Rs. 26,980/- was issued. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued requiring the assessee to furnish specific details. The assessee submitted responses and uploaded documents periodically. During the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had declared long-term capital gain ('LTCG') from the sale of immovable property. The Assessing Officer noted that sale consideration for seven flats as per sale deed was lower than the stamp duty value. He invoked section 50C of the Act which mandates that stamp duty value or actu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... function as one unit. The assessee also stated before the ld. CIT(A) that delay in completion of the construction was due to default of builders and not for the fault of the assessee. However, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal emphasising that flats were acquired through two separate agreements and no conclusive evidence was provided to prove that these were indeed a single unit. Moreover, the assessee failed to comply with the statutory condition and had not responded adequately to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Before the Bench, the assessee reiterated that the flats were designed to function as one unit supported by architectural certif....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aring the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record, find that the addition u/s 50C was for the difference between sale consideration and stamp duty value and was marginally very low i.e. Rs. 10,21,262/-, which is only 2.7% of the sale consideration. We, after relying on the judicial precedents, hold that the addition of Rs. 10,21,262/- was unwarranted. Since this argument aligns with the judicial principles emphasising that minor deviation does not necessarily reflect an attempt to evade taxes, particularly when the variation is below a threshold limit of 5%.. We in this respect rely on the decision of the Coordinate Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of 'Shaista Irphan Mogul vs. ACIT' in ITA No.4916/Mum/2019 d....