TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1781
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the difference in value as per Stamp Duty Authorities and as per Agreement was on account of the area wrongly stated by the appellant's advocate in the Agreement. Hence, the addition of Rs. 5,58,000/- as made by the AO may be deleted. 3. While upholding the addition u/s. 56(2)(x) of Rs. 5,58,000/-, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant neither furnished the sale agreement dated 19.06.2017 nor the sale deed in support of the appellant's claim. 4) Appellant prays that the addition made by the AO of Rs. 5,58,000/- u/s. 56(2)(x) and confirmed by the CIT(A), may be deleted. 4. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another and the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal. The sole grievance of the assessee, in the present appeal, is against the addition made under section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act, being the difference between the consideration and stamp duty value of the immovable property acquired by the assessee." 3. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case pertaining to the aforesaid issue are that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lue of such property as exceeds such consideration, if the amount of such excess is more than the higher of the following amounts, namely :- (i) the amount of fifty thousand rupees; and (ii) the amount equal to five per cent of the consideration:" 7. Further, vide Finance Act 2020, w.e.f. 01/04/2021, sub-clause (B) of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act was again amended, and the tolerance limit was increased from 5% to 10% of the consideration. Accordingly, it is evident that as per the amended provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act, since the excess of stamp duty value over the purchase consideration, i.e. Rs. 5,58,000 is less than the 10% of the consideration, i.e. Rs.9,00,000, therefore the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act are not applicable. As per the learned DR, the amendment mentioned above does not apply to the year under consideration, i.e. the assessment year 2018-19 and is prospective in its application. 8. We find that a similar issue came up for consideration before the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in Sandeep Kumar Poddar v/s ITO, [2023] 151 taxmann.com 18 (Kol .- Trib.), wherein the coordinate bench following another decision of the Tribunal i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ryl (supra) which has been subsequently followed by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Karb Associates (P.) Ltd. (supra). Since we have nothing more to add or improve upon the observations and finding given by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai, we extract the relevant observations and finding below for ease of reference: "7. 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 bona fide 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stamp duty value and actual consideration received can occur in respect of similar properties in the same area because of a variety of factors, including the shape of the plot or location," 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 50C(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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ult of transfer of a capital asset being land or building or both. Both the sections induce deeming fiction to substitute actual sale consideration with notional value of asset based on Stamp Duty valuation. Further, a perusal of Circular 8 of 2018 (supra), would show that identical reasons have been given in Para 16 for 'Rationalization of Sections 43CA and 50C'. The proviso has been inserted and subsequently tolerance band limit has been enhanced to mitigate hardship of genuine transactions in the real estate sector. Ergo, in the light of reasoning given for insertion of the proviso and exposition by the Tribunal for retrospective application of the said proviso, I have no hesitation in holding that the proviso to sub-section (1) to section 43CA and the subsequent amendment thereto relates back to the date on which the said section was made effective i.e. 01/4/2014." 6.3 Finding given by Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Kolkata in Karb Associates (P.) Ltd. (supra), on the above is reproduced as under: "15. In the light of the submission of the assessee on this aspect, and taking into consideration the Tribunal's decision in the case of Radhika Sales Corporation (supra), ....