TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1382
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Assessment Order passed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act which is passed against the principal of natural justice. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 71,35,268/- made by the Ld. AO being the difference between the stamp duty value of Rs. 14,34,35,268/- and the agreement value of Rs. 13,63,00,000/-. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and In law, the Ld. CIT has erred in confirming the Limit of the benefit of tolerance limit to 5% of the actual consideration but as per 50C wherein the third proviso to section 50C(1) provides that if the stamp duty value does not exceed 110% of the actual consideratio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 14,34,35,268/- as the full value of consideration instead of the actual sale consideration of Rs. 13,63,00,000/- for the sale of a residential flat; (ii) Disallowance of expenses: Rs. 86,36,200/- comprising stamp duty of Rs. 86,06,200/- and registration charges of Rs. 30,000/- incurred by the appellant as per the sale agreement. 3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid additions/disallowances, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. However, contentions raised by the assessee were not accepted by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and accordingly, appeal of the assessee has been dismissed, with confirming the disallowances/additions made by the A.O. For the sake of completeness, observations of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....34,35,268/-, and the addition of Rs. 71,35,268/- is upheld. The appellant claimed that the stamp duty value exceeded the FMV, necessitating a DVO reference under section 50C(2) of the Act. However, the A.D. provided adequate opportunity via show-cause notice dated 22-09-2022 and video conference on 27-09-2022, where the appellant failed to substantiate the FMV claim with credible evidence. The word "may" in section 50C(2) grants discretion to the A.O. Judicial precedents like S. Muthuraja v. CIT mandate DVO reference only when substantive evidence supports the FMV claim. In the absence of such evidence, the A.O.'s decision not to refer is justified. Thus, the addition under section 50C is valid on this ground as well. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which is under consideration. 5. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel representing the assessee submitted that the assessee had sold flat on 30.01.2020 during the relevant year for actual consideration of Rs. 13,63,00,000/-, whereas the valuation by the stamp authority was Rs. 14,34,35,268/-. It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that as per the "third proviso" to Section 50C(1) of the Act, as amended vide the Finance Act, 2020, the tolerance limit for difference in actual consideration and stamp duty value has been enhanced to 10% from earlier limit of 5%. It was submitted that such beneficial provision has retr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 + Rs. 30,000/- payable on this Agreement shall be borne and paid by the vendor. Any further amount with respect to the stamp duty and registration charges, if any shall be borne and paid by the Purchasers. However, any Advocates/Solicitors fees shall be borne and paid by the respective parties alone." After clarifying the aforesaid fact, corroborated with the registered sale agreement dated 30.01.2020, the Ld. Counsel contended that since the stamp duty and registration charges are borne by the assessee being vendor of the property, the same is an allowable expenditure, so cannot be disallowed. In support of his aforesaid contention, the Ld. Counsel relied on the following judicial pronouncements: "1. KISHORE BHAGWANDAS RAMNAN....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en stated sale consideration vis-à-vis stamp duty valuation from 5 percent to 10 percent are effective from the date on which section 50C, itself was introduced i.e. 01.04.2003. Similar findings are given in the other decisions also, relied upon by the assessee referred to supra. 8. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, it is held that the enhancement in tolerance limit to 10% will have retrospective effect from 01.04.2003 and the case of the assessee pertain to AY 2020-21, therefore, we agree with the contention raised by the Ld. Counsel. Accordingly, the addition made by the A.O u/s. 50C of the Act of Rs. 71,35,268/- found to be in contraventions to provisions of section 50C, the same accordingly cannot sustain. Thus, t....