TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 37
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submissions made by the appellant. Reasons assigned by him for doing the same are erroneous and against law. The appellant prays to delete the additions of Rs. 1,35,17,690. 2. Without prejudice to the figure of Rs. 1,35,17,690 mentioned in ground of Appeal no. 1 above, there is an arithmetical error in the Assessment Order as well as Appellate Order, as the same ought to have been at Rs. 1,34,13,360. Thus there is an excessive addition of Rs. 104309. 3 The learned CIT(A) erred in making further addition of Rs. 6,30,873 for flat no. KAR-103 as long term capital gain. The Ld. CIT(A) did not issue the notice of enhancement before making this addition in the Appellate Order. Reasons assigned by him are wrong and insufficient. Therefore, Appellant prays for the deletion the addition of Rs. 6,30,873 as confirmed by the Learned CIT(A). 4. Order passed is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, Appellant prays for the deletion of additions confirmed by the Learned CIT(A)." 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee is an individual. For the Assessment Year 2018-2019 the Assessing Officer completed the assessment vide Assessment Order, dated 23/04/2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iew that the Assessee had provided vague explanation regarding the source of purchase consideration and therefore, the Assessing Officer treated the consideration paid by the Assessee as 'Nil' and treated the aggregate stamp duty value of INR. 1,35,17,669/- (INR. 1,01,94,401/- + INR. 33,23,268/-) as income of the Assessee under Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. 5.2. In appeal before the CIT(A), it was contended on behalf of the Assessee that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that during the relevant previous year only Agreement to Sell registered on 23/03/2018. It was explained that the Assessee had received the property under consideration by way of a registered Declaration Deed, dated 25/12/2008. The consideration agreed upon was duly disclosed in the financial statements for the relevant Previous Year 2008-2009 by the Assessee as well as the transferee partnership firm (i.e. M/s Sunket Associates) wherein the Assessee was also a partner. Therefore, the stamp duty value on the date of the aforesaid Declaration Deed and as on the date of registration of Agreement to Sell should have been adopted by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of determining the applicability of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tween the date of agreement between the parties to transfer/sell the immovable property and date of the actual registration of sale deed and the same reads as under: "Section 56 (1) xx xx (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", namely :- (x) where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after the 1st day of April, 2017,- (a) xx xx (b) any immovable property- (A) xx xx (B) for a consideration, the stamp duty value 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 Provided that 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 the agreement may be taken for the purposes of this sub-clause: Provided further that the provisions of the first proviso ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claration Deed, dated 25/12/2008. On perusal of Declaration Deed, dated 25/12/2008 (Placed at Page 81 to 93 of the Paper Book), we find that the same is a registered document whereby the partners of the partnership firm (namely, Sunket Associates) has declared that the partners of the said partnership firm (including the Assessee) have been allocated Units by way of withdrawal of partnership assets held as stock-in-trade. The declaration clearly states that the partners were in exclusive possession of their respective units allocated to them by way of the aforesaid Declaration Deed. Further, as per the said Declaration Deed the Assessee was allocated premise No.001 (Carpet area 620 sq. ft.) at Ground Floor of project situated at CTS No.1406/3/1 and 1406/3/2 of Village Malad (South), Taluka Borivali, Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban. On going through the audited financial statements of the partnership firm Sunket Associates for the Assessment Year 2009-2010 we find that a withdrawal of INR. 16,84,877/- has been shown in the Capital Account of the Assessee (as on 30/03/2009) with the narration 'To Withdrawal of KP'. We find that corresponding disclosure has been made by the Assessee in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the said section. In terms of the aforesaid directions, addition of INR. 1,35,17,669/- made by the Assessing Officer is deleted and Ground No. 1 raised by the Assessee are allowed and Ground No. 2 is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. Ground No. 3 6. Ground No.3 raised by the Assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) directing Assessing Officer to being to tax Long Term Capital Gain of INR. 6,30,873/- in the hands of the Assessee under Section 50C of the Act in respect of sale of Office at SI Details of Property Stamp Duty Value Transaction Value Difference 1. KRA A, 103, Floor No.1, KEMPA Plaza, Plaza, Malad P, Chincholi Bandar Road Mumbai [For short 'Property Sold'] 2,51,00,000 2,66,80,568 15,80,568 6.1. According to the Assessing Officer, the Assessee had understated the capital gain by INR. 15,80,568/- in respect of Property Sold and had invoked provisions of Section 50C of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer did not make any additions in this regard in the concluding part of the Assessment Order. The aforesaid fact was noted by the CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) noted that in the computation of tot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the provisions of Section 50C/Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii)/56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act. The relevant extract of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal reads as under: "14. On a conjoint reading of sections 50C, 43CA and 56(2)(x) of the Act, the legislative intention becomes absolutely clear that wherever the statute provides for adoption of the value determined by the stamp valuation authority as the deemed sale consideration, in case, it exceeds declared sale consideration, exceptions have also been provided not to adopt the market value if the difference between the value declared by the assessee and determined by the stamp duty authority is within a permissible limit. 15. The reason for not providing such an exception in section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) is patent and obvious. As could be seen, the amendments to sections 50C, 56(2)(x) and 43CA providing for exception in case of marginal difference between the declared sale consideration and value determined by the stamp valuation authority were introduced to the statute by Finance Act, 2018 with effect from 1-4-2019. Meaning thereby, the legislature did not felt the necessity of introducing such an exception to section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i....