TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 341
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act was conducted on 21.08.2018 at the business and residential premises of different members / associate concern of Tapadia group at Aurangabad and their family members and business concerns during which the assessee was also covered. In response to notice u/s 153A of the Act the assessee filed its return of income on 01.06.2020 declaring total loss at Rs. 23,50,420/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 153A of the Act on 02.06.2021 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 23,43,850/- wherein he had made addition of Rs. 46,94,267/- u/s 43CA of the Act on the ground that there is a difference of Rs. 46,94,267/- between the actual consideration of the land and the government valuation. 3. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT perused the record and found that a valuation report was furnished by the Sub-Registrar, Jalna vide letter dated 30.04.2021, according to which, the valuation was given for land at Gut No.105, lands in 22 other Guts and also for buildings, plant and machinery on the above land. On perusal of the valuation report he noticed that the Registrar has given the valuation of buildings, godown, staff quarters, function hall, plant & machinery e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion 8. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by the assessee. In response to the show cause, the assessee has filed written submissions dated 21/07/2023 and 18/11/2023. which is placed on record. The counsel of the assessee further attended hearings on 09-01-2024 and 07-02-204 to further explain the issue. The reply submitted by the assessee is considered, but found not acceptable for the detailed reasons mentioned hereunder. a) On the issue of non- applicability of the provisions of the section 43CA, the reply of the assessee is not acceptable as the assessment year concerned in this case is A.Y.2015-16 which is after the insertion of the section 43CA. As such the objection of the assessee that the section is being applied retrospectively is not correct. In its submission the assessee company has stated that the Assessee Company entered into agreement to sale as on 03.12.2012 and according to the agreement to sale, the purchaser made payment of the first installment on the same day that is on 03.12.2012 of Rs. 31,73,33,433/- through RTGS. Subsequently Rs. 2,06,00,000/- was paid in the month of March 2013 and balance payment w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and which has been considered by the AO while making assessment in this case. However the valuation of the structure has not been given in the revised valuation report submitted by the sub registrar applying the rates as applicable in 2012. (ii) As a supporting evidence for the rates applicable in the year 2012 in respect of the land and structure, the assessee has given classification of the land as gramin as per the Office of the Inspector General of Registration, Pune, Maharashtra state, in which the land has been classified in the "vibhag 4" and the value of land in vibhag 4 has been given at Rs. 600/- per square meter as applicable in the year 2012. As regards structure the rate of valuation as per the above said authority is Rs. 8000/- per square meter for RCC structure Rs. 6000/- per square meter for other pakka structure and Rs. 3000/- per square meter for the semi Pakka structure and Rs. 2000/- for Kaccha Structure. Further it is submitted by the assessee that the valuation of the property is to be adjusted as per the age of the said building and for the same a slab rates are provided. For the building of age between 20-30 years the value of the aadha pakka and aa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ORE FIFTY THREE LACK FIFTY FIVE THOUSAND & EIGHT HUNDRED ONLY. (iv) It is further submitted by the assessee that, "since the ready reckoner value of the building of the factory and other structure transferred is way below the actual consideration of Rs. 13,74,63,267/- received as a result of the transfer, therefore, the provisions of section 43 CA is not attracted in the present case". It is noticed from the record that the proposal for the revision of the order has been sent on the basis of the valuation report for the factory building and fixed assets of the sub registrar, Jalna dated 10/04/2014, which apparently is done as per the rates of 2014. It is further noticed from the records that the AO during the course of assessment, has not referred the valuation of factory building and fixed assets of the sugar factory to the DVO. In view of what has been stated herein above, it is amply clear that the assessing officer has not applied his mind fully to the facts of the case and has not made necessary inquiries before completion of the assessment. The order dated 02- 06-2021 passed by the AO is therefore erroneous and is also prejudicial to interest of revenue and consequen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stances, it is humbly prayed that the order u/s 263 is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 2. THE CHALLENGE TO REVISION OF THE JURISICTIONLESS ASSESSMENT ORDER 2.1 The Ld. PCIT has erred in initiating the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act and revising the assessment order which itself is without jurisdiction and invalid. 2.2 The Ld. PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction in revising the invalid and illegal assessment order. 2.3 In the facts and circumstances and in law the Ld. PCIT has erred in revising the assessment and therefore it is prayed to quash the order passed u/s 263 of the Act. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 3. REVISION ILLEGAL 3.1 The Ld. Pr. CIT erred in passing the order u/s 263 of the Act, revising the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act. 3.2 It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the order is bad, illegal and void as necessary preconditions for initiating the revision proceedings as well as the completion thereof were not fulfilled. a. Without prejudice to the generality above, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s 263 in a case where the same has been passed with the approval of the Addl.CIT u/s 153D of the Act. 9. Referring to the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Devender Kumar Gupta vs. PCIT reported in (2024) 166 taxmann.com 95 (Delhi - Trib), he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that an order of assessment passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act after getting an approval of the Jt. Commissioner u/s 153D of the Act could not be revised u/s 263 of the Act without giving a finding that prior approval u/s 153D was vitiated and was also erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 10. Referring to the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Alankit Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT vide ITA No.2051/PUN/2024 vide order dated 25.11.2024 for assessment year 2013-14 he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has also held that the revision order passed u/s 263 of the Act is liable to be quashed since the same has been passed after obtaining the necessary approval from the Addl. CIT u/s 153D of the Act. 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his next plank of argument submitted that no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n vs. ITO vide ITA No.354/Kol/2023, order dated 13.07.2023 for assessment year 2015-16 iii) Bal Kishan Gupta vs. ACIT (2023) 152 taxmann.com 567 (Delhi - Trib.) iv) Naina Saraf vs. PCIT vide ITA No.271/JP/2020, order dated 14.09.2021 for assessment year 2015-16 which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. 16. Referring to the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Martial Buildcom P. Ltd. vide ITA Nos.2677 & 2678/Del/2023, order dated 31.01.2024 he submitted that the valuation report of the DVO cannot be the incriminating material. 17. He submitted that none of the lower authorities and the Ld. DR has alleged that the sale deed found during the search is incriminating material. He submitted that the transaction was duly recorded in the books of account and in the return of income. The consideration has been received through banking channel and there is no allegation of any unaccounted income. The registered sale deed is a public document and the registrar is mandatorily supposed to report such transactions to the Income Tax Department as per provisions of section 285BA of the Act. He submitted that sale deed / Ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment proceedings the Assessing Officer has made specific enquiry regarding the valuation difference of Rs. 69.99 crore consisting of Rs. 51.43 crore of land and Rs. 18.56 crore of building. After considering the detailed submission by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee the Assessing Officer was satisfied with respect to valuation of building and made addition only with respect to difference in valuation of land. 24. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Arul Industries vs. ACIT reported in (2025) 177 taxmann.com 607 (Mad), he submitted that where the Assessing Officer had made enquiry even through inadequate the Commissioner could not assume jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. 25. Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Krishi Utpanna Bazar Samittee vs. DCIT vice versa vide ITA Nos.2043/PN/2012 and 2166/PN/2012, order dated 20.03.2014 for assessment year 2008-09, he drew the attention of the Bench to para 10 of the order and submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that in view of the circular dated 30.06.2005 issued by the Government of Maharashtra for the purpose of payment of stamp duty, the h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....always not represent the fair market value of the property and therefore, the invocation of the power under section 263 of the Act by the PCTT is not sustainable in law." 28. Referring to the decision of the Chennai 'C' Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Gaurav Dugar vs. PCIT vide ITA No.948/CHNY/2024 vide order dated 30.08.2024 for assessment year 2014-15, he submitted that the Tribunal, following the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Padmavathi (supra), has held that the revision is not possible merely because guideline value was higher than the sale consideration shown in the deed of conveyance and hence the same cannot be a sole reason for holding the assessment as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 29. Referring to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Renukamata Multi State Coop Urban Credit Society Ltd. vs. ACIT vide ITA Nos.4001 & 4002/Mum/2019, vide order dated 06.02.2023 for assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that if an assessee has recorded transactions in his books or other documents maintained in the or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved." 31. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, he submitted that the auction was allotted to the assessee on 05.03.2015 and an agreement to sell with the purchaser was entered into on 23.11.2012 (preliminary) and on 03.12.2012 (final). The sale certificate by the auctioneer was issued on 03.12.2012 and the property's highest bid of the auction depicts fair market value of the property. He submitted that the highest bid of the assessee was Rs. 28,83,34,349/- and the actual sale consideration is Rs. 29,10,37,733/- and the same is higher than the fair market value. Therefore, the provisions of section 43CA of the Act do not apply. For the above proposition, he relied on the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Krishi Utpanna Bazar Samittee vs. DCIT vide ITA No.2043/PUN/2012 order dated 20.03.2014. Relying on various other decisions he submitted that the order passed u/s 263 by the Ld. PCIT is not justified and is liable to be set aside. 32. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. PCIT. Referring to the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kapil Mehta vs. PCIT vide ITA No.533/Del/2021 order dated 11.10.2021 for assessment year 2017-18, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that where the assessment has been framed u/s 153A of the Act or section 153C, the same will not go out of the ambit of the provisions of section 263 of the Act. 36. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Osho Forge Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2019) 410 ITR 198 (P&H), he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that section 153D is only applicable for passing an assessment order or re-assessment order, however, there is no requirement under section 153D of the Act for prior approval for complying with remand directions. He accordingly submitted that since the order of PCIT is an elaborate one and in accordance with law, therefore, the same should be upheld. 37. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his rejoinder submitted that in Jankhit Chandulal Prajapati (supra), incriminating digital data was seized reflecting unsecured loans / advances of 235.56 crores from Kolkata-based companies, which were i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Please refer to this office notice u/s 142(1) dated 16/11/2020 & reply submitted by you vide letter 01/02/2021 received in this office on 04/03/2021. On perusal of the records and reply furnished by you, it Is seen that the assets in the form of lands were transferred by M/s Tapadia Construction Limited vide sale deed dated 03.05.2021 by sale consideration of Rs. 27,58,86,733/-, However, on perusal of the valuation report furnished by the Sub-registrar vide dated 02/05/2014, the actual valuation of the lands Is of Rs. 28,05,81,000/-, The consideration of the same has been also accepted by you in reply of notice u/s 142(1) dated 16/11/2020 at point no. 5(xi). Thus sale considered is considered less than the govt. valuation and violated the provisions of section 43CA of the I.T.Act, 1961. In this regard, you are required to explain as to why addition of Rs. 46,94,267/- (28,05,81,000-27,58,86,733) should not be made to your total Income for the year under consideration. 41. Similarly the Assessing Officer vide notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 19.04.2021, copy of which is placed at pages 70 and 71 of the paper book has raised the following query: ANNEXURE ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vs. M/s. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom) at para 8 of the order has observed as under: "8. We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal does record the fact that specific queries were made during the Assessment proceedings with regard to details of expenditure claimed under the head "miscellaneous expenses" aggregating to Rs. 2.94 crores. The respondent-assessee had responded to the same and on consideration of response of the respondent-assessee, the Assessing Officer held that of an amount of Rs. 17.98 lakhs incurred on account of repairs and maintenance out of Rs. 2.94 cores is capital expenditure. This itself would be indication of application of mind by the Assessing Officer while passing the impugned order. The fact that the assessment order itself does not contain any discussion with regard to the balance amount of expenditure of Rs. 1.76 crores i.e. Rs. 2.94 crores less Rs. 17.98 lakhs claimed as revenue expenditure would not by itself indicate non application of mind to this issue by the Assessing Officer in view of specific queries made during the assessment proceedings and the Respondent-assessee's response to it. In fact this Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of deduction, etc. Therefore, one has to see from the record as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction between "lack of inquiry" and "inadequate inquiry". If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of "lack of inquiry", that such a course of action would be open. --- From the aforesaid definitions it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been written more elaborately. This section does not visualise a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decision is held to be erroneous. Cases may be vis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e set aside the order u/s 263 of the Act. 49. We further find the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Gaurav Dugar vs. PCIT (supra) has held that revision is not possible merely because guideline value was higher than the sale consideration shown in the deed of conveyance and hence the same cannot be a sole reason for holding the assessment as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The relevant observations of the Tribunal read as under: "10. As regards to second facet of argument made by the learned counsel for the assessee is that issues under revision are on simplicitor valuation of stamp duty and simplicitor valuation done on the guideline value adopted by the stamp valuation authority, which is just an estimate and cannot be subject matter of revision u/s.263 of the Act. We noted that this issue has been considered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Shanmuga Sundaram Govindaraj Vs ACIT in ITA No.377/Chny/2021 dated 22.07.2022, wherein the Tribunal considering the decision of co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Maria Fernandas Cheryl Vs.ITO (2021) 85 ITR (T) 674 (Mumbai Trib) and thejud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... again a debate. Once there is a debate, the order cannot be held as erroneous in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., vs. CIT, (2000) 243 ITR 83. Hence, we quash the revision proceedings and allow the appeal of assessee." 11. In view of the above, we are the view that issues raised by the Pr.CIT in regard to difference between the stamp duty value and documentary value for purchase and sale of lands and acquiring of the properties during financial year 2013-14 relevant to the assessment year 2014-15 by the assessee is nothing but an estimate and this is highly debatable issue. Even, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. MRs. Padmavathy (supra) has considered an identical issue and therefore, held that revision is not possible merely because guideline value was higher than the sale consideration shown in the deed of conveyance and hence, same cannot be sole reason for holding that assessment is erroneous, insofar as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Hence, we quash the revision order on this facet also. 12. In view of the above discussion and facts of the case, we hold that revision ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the judgement of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Prakhar Developers (P) Ltd. (supra) where the Hon'ble Madras High Court has taken into consideration the fact that the Pune Bench order in the case of Ramamoorthy Vasudevan v. PCIT [IT Appeal Nos. 967 & 968/Pune/2016] wherein it was held that the order passed by the PCIT is unsustainable due to lack of jurisdiction in invoking section 263 of the Act for the reason that the same was passed upon taking prior approval u/s 153A of the Act, was not challenged by the Department before the Hon'ble High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, thus, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in its judgement dated 01.04.2024 has held as follows:- "8. Even otherwise, as per Section 263 of the Act, the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer, is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, he may make enquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify. For passing any order unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he page no. 12 of Item no. 05 of Annexure-A to the Panchnama of the office premise of Tapadia there are certain entries pertaining to AY 15-16 of rental income received from Shriram Finance for office premise at Kailash Market, How the same is offered to tax? 4. Please submit the account statements of your accounts for the AY under consideration, also submit account details of any other account apart the accounts given below S No Bank Account Type Account No/No.s 1 The Malkapur Urban Co-Op Bank, Aurangabad Current Account 42 2 ICICI Bank Ltd 004405000989 3 HDFC Bank - 08268730000093 50200027430888 50200027462555 4 Saraswat Co-Op Bank Savings Account 1388 5. As per seized item no.02 of Annexure to Panchnamadtd. 24/08/2018 by Part AT-02, The assets in the form of land were transferred by M/s Tapadia Construction Ltd vide sale deed dated 03.05.2014 with following particulars. Total area Sq meter in Village name Actual Consideration Stamp Valuation Gut No. Document 2 Sr. No. 1 2 3 4 5 1 Savargaon 76 17000 69,99,91,500/- 27,58,86,733/- 2 Savargaon 77 11800 3 Savargaon 78 13400 4 Savargaon 79 15800 5 Savargaon 87 69800 6 Savar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... - I. 3. The notings mentioned on the Page No. 12 of Item No. 5 of the Annexure-A to the ( Panchanama of the office premises of Tapadia Group pertain tu recovery of rent from Shriram Finance Ltd. This rent is in respect of the office premises at Kailash po we which was given to Shriram Finance Ltd. The office premises are owned by Mr. Shrigopal Soni, Anupalna Tapadia and Mr. Pankaj Gangwal. The rental AnwadH&M income from Shriram Finance is duly disclosed and offered to tax in their respective Income Tax Returns. The copies of Computation of Total Income and ITR of Mr. Shrigopal Soni, Anupama Tapadia and Mr. Pankaj Gangwal for A.Y. 2015-16 are attached herewith in Annexure - II. 4. The account statements of the current accounts with The Malkapur Urban Co- operative Bank Ltd, HDFC Bank and The Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd. are enclosed in Annexure - III. Apart from these accounts, the company also has accounts with other banks and the list of the same is appearing in Note No. 16 to the Balance Sheet. The transactions of all the bank accounts are duly recorded in the books of accounts of the company. Document 6 5. Regarding the sale of landed properties at village Savarga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nk issued Sale Certificate in favour of TCL and also delivered the possession of the Immovable and Movable Assets on 03/12/2012. viii) On 16/09/2013 TCL executed the Sale Deed of land admeasuring 2 H 92 R (29,200 sq. mtrs.) in favour of ASI vide Sale Deed registered at day book No. 2791 of 2013 for a consideration of Rs. 1,51,50,000/ -. Thereafter, on 03/05/2014 TCL executed the sale deed of balance land admeasuring 84 H 73 R (8,47,300 sq. mtrs.) in favour of ASI for a consideration of Rs. 27,58,86,733/- vide Sale veed registered at day book No. 1352 of 2014. On 03/05/2014 itself TCL sold all the Movable Assets of JSSK to ASI for a Consideration of Rs. 13,74,63,267/- and MVAT amount of Rs. 1,71,82,908/- was also collected and paid by TCL on the sale of movable assets. The summary of total Movable and Immovable Assets of Jalna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. sold by TCL to ASI is as follows :- i) Land 29,200 sq. mtrs. Rs. 1,51,50,000/- ii) Land 8,47,300 sq. mtrs. Rs. 27,58,86,733/- iii) Movable Assets Rs. 13,74,63,267/- Total sales consideration Rs. 42,85,00,000/- ix) The transaction for sale of land 29,200 sq. mtrs. is accounted and offered to taxation in A.Y. 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sold. in ANNEXURE.I xv) Apart from this, it is worth considering here that the provisions of Section 43CA have been inserted vide Finance Act, 2013, w.e.f. 01/04/2014 whereas in our case the parties entered into the transaction of sale in the year 2012, agreements fixing the consideration are executed in the year 2012, the major consideration is received from the purchaser in the year 2012 itself and only the sale deed is executed in the year 2014. When the Document 9 transaction was entered between the parties, the provisions of Section 43CA were not in existence. Hence, it would be highly unjust and unwarranted to apply the provisions of section 43CA to the present transaction. xvi) As mentioned earlier, the scrutiny proceedings for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2015-16 have been completed. All the issues are duly verified in the earlier scrutiny proceedings. There is no incriminating evidence/material/documents in connection with this transaction found during the search and seizure proceedings. The documents found are duly recorded in the books of accounts. There is no document/evidence showing the unaccounted transactions regarding this sale are found during ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... For rest of the Immovable Property (Land) by Deed of conveyance in May 2014, offer to Tax in A.Y. 2015-16 Profit on consideration. Your Honour has raised an issue proposing addition u/s 43CA Stamp Duty Valuation on Conveyance Deed of May 2014 as against Actual Consideration. In this connection, We have submitted that the Jalna Sugar Factory land other assets are agreed to be sold to Arjun Sugar Industries Pvt. Ltd., Jalna as per the Agreements made and executed in the year 2012 wherein the Sale Consideration is Fixed. Copies of the agreements are furnished alongwith our earlier submission however, we are again enclosing the copies of agreements alongwith this letter for the purpose of ready reference. It is not only execution but even the part consideration (about 3/4th) is received by RTGS on 03/12/2012 i.e. on the date of Agreement to Sale. Document 11 On getting the Court Order dated 31.10.2012, company was unable to make Financial Arrangements for payment of about 38/39 Crores, to avoid default and Legal Consequences and started negotiations with Arjun Sugar Industries Pvt. Ltd. Negotiations started in October/ November 2012. This is a case of distress Sale. . Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transfer. Document 12 (2) The provisions of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of section 50C shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to determination of the value adopted or assessed or assessable under sub-section (1). (3) Where the date of agreement fixing the value of consideration for transfer of the asset and the date of registration of such transfer of asset are not the same, the value referred to in sub-section (1) may be taken as the value assessable by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer on the date of the agreement. (4) The provisions of sub-section (3) shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration or a part thereof has been received by any mode other than cash on or before the date of agreement for transfer of the asset." (Emphasis Supplied) Section 43CA(3) clearly provides that stamp duty value as on date of agreement fixing the price, is to be adopted for the purpose of Section 43CA(1). It may please be noted that section only states agreement fixing the price, there is no condition of Registration of the said agreement, such agreement can even be oral. Such Agre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are decided and fixed by the Government of Maharashtra from year to year. We have no authority / control over the fixation of valuation and the system of valuation which is the sole prerogative of the State Government. On verification of the Ready Reckoner (Copy of the same is furnished alongwith our earlier submission) it would reveal that the villages are grouped in sections and Savargaon is grouped under Section 4 and the rates of valuation are prescribed section-wise. As such, there would not be any difference in valuation of lands in Gut No. 105 and adjacent lands in various gut numbers. 3) In our earlier submissions we had furnished the valuation of the landed property according to the ready reckoner published by Government of Maharashtra for the purpose of deciding the fair market value of landed properties and for the purpose of charging stamp duty, which is a valid and authentic basis for valuation of properties. The Income Tax Act, 1961 also takes the basis of government ready reckoner as valid and acceptable. As such taking the basis of actual property transaction in above Gut No. in year 2012 for determination of fair market value is not warranted. 4) As explained....