AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 1489
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e relates to a solitary issue namely, whether a sum of Rs. 9,74,950/- deserves to be added in her hand u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') on the ground that difference between the valuation (for the stamp duty purpose) vis-à-vis purchase cost disclosed by the assessee in the deed deserves to be deemed as income of the assessee or not. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed her return of income on 19.01.2016 for AY 2015-16. She disclosed a total income of Rs. 5,48,510/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. The Assessing Officer (in short ld. 'AO') found that the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h first payment was made on 27.11.2010, formal agreement for purchase/sale of which was executed on 07.05.2011 last and final payment for which was made on 10.10.2012 and physical possession of which was taken on 09.01.2013 as mentioned above. 5. In order to buttress the contentions raised in the events of above details, ld. Counsel for the assessee took us through page no. 33 and demonstrated that physical possession was delivered on 09.01.2013. He also placed on record electricity bill for the month of February, 2013 in the name of the assessee to support that physical possession was with the assessee and electric meter was installed in her name. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further, demonstrated the details of payments through account p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Income Tax Act. In the case in hand, the possession was taken by the assessee on 09.01.2013. It means transfer has taken place prior to accounting year 2014-15 and if that be so then no deemed gift is taxable in the hands of the assessee. Before adverting to the other decisions referred by ld. Counsel for the assessee, we deem it appropriate to note following observation of the Hon'ble High Court: "12. Sub-clause (ii) of Section 2(47) of the Act states that the transfer, in relation to a capital asset, includes the extinguishment of any rights therein. In Sanjeev Lal v. CIT [2014] 365 1TR 389/225 Taxman 239/46 taxmann.com 300 (SC), the Supreme Court considered the question as to whether the date on which the agreement for sale was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....computation under Section 48 of the Act will start accordingly, for the purpose of calculating the capital gains under Section 45 of the Act. From the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the transfer of the property took place in the year 2001 when the provision of Section 50C of the Act was not in existence. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the reassessment and computing the capital gains by invoking the provision of Section 50C of the Act, which was clearly not applicable in the assessees' case." 8. The similar issue has been considered by ITAT Ranchi Bench in the case of Bajrang Lal Naredi vs. ITO in ITA No. 327/RAN/2018 order dated 20.01.2020. The finding of the Tribunal in paragraph no. 6 to 7 is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s thus submitted that the transactions entered prior to the FY 2013-14 would be governed by the pre-amended provision which triggers the applicability of such provision only where there is a total lack of consideration and does not cover a case of inadequacy in purchase consideration. 7. We find merit in such plea advanced on behalf of the assessee. It is not in dispute that purchase transactions of immovable property were carried out in FY 2011-12 for which full consideration was also parted with the seller. Mere registration at later date would not cover a transaction already executed in the earlier years and substantial obligations have already been discharged and a substantive right has accrued to the assessee therefrom. The pre-amen....