TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 878
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appreciating the fact the property in question is agriculture land and that said provision is not applicable on purchase of Agricultural Land, hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 4. Without Prejudice to above, That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 44,75,913/- without appreciating the fact the applicability of section 56(2)(vii)(b) is prospective from 01.04.2014, whereas the impugned transaction pertains to F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to A.Y. 2011-12., the provision could not have been invoked for the year under appeal, and the addition is liable to be deleted on this ground alone. 5. Without Prejudice to above, That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 44,75,913/- without appreciating the fact the impugned transaction pertains to F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to A.Y. 2011-12., so if any addition has to be made on account of the transaction in question than that has to be in the AY 2011-12 and not in AY 2014-15, hence, the addition is liable to be deleted on this ground. 6. That in the facts and circumstances of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her parties vide agreement dated 30/06/2010, acquired the said property for a consideration of Rs. 60,00,000/-. It was submitted that, provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was introduced by Finance Act, 2013, w.e.f. 01/04/2014. It was thus submitted that, these provisions were not applicable to the present transactions. The assessee also submitted that, the said land being in the green zone, wherein no construction or commercial work is allowable. It was also submitted that, the land was having status of 32G which means no sale-deed can be executed without the permissions of Tehsildar/Collector. Assessee, thus submitted that, stamp duty value as on 2010 has to be considered as against value as on the date of registration. 2.2. The assessee also submitted the property card details before the authorities below which were not considered. The assessee submitted that, the said land is outside the municipal limits as per the certificate issued by the Tehsildar. He further submitted that, he is only 1/5th shareholder and had contributed Rs. 11,83,674/- towards the total purchase consideration and Rs. 18,36,900/- towards expenses incurred for the purchase of the said property. The Ld.AO,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ultural land and whether the land purchased by the appellant is covered u/s. 2(14). Regarding, the first issue, the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) does not defines the term "immovable property". Further, Section 56(2)(vii) mentions about "immovable Property" and "Other than Immovable property". Hence, Section 56(2)(vii) does not refer to "Capital asset" as defined in Section 2(14), but has consciously used the term "immovable property". Section 56 is taxed under the head "Income from other sources". Hence, the difference in the stamp duty value and the purchase consideration in the hands of the purchaser is taxed under the head "Income from other sources". On the other hand in the case of the seller the difference in the consideration as per the stamp duty value and the sale consideration is taxed u/s. 50C which is under the head "Capital gain", wherein the section 50C clearly speaks about the "transfer of a "capital asset". 7.6. Section 56 is a deeming provision to bring to tax, the transaction through less consideration reported as "income from other sources". In the case of the seller of agricultural land, it is the farmer who sells the land and, hence, the same is ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has observed that, the appellant has not carried out any agriculture activity and has not disclosed any agriculture income in subsequent years. In this regard reference is made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT [1993] 70 Taxman 30/204 ITR 631 wherein the Hon'ble court has held that, agricultural status depends on actual use and intention, and not merely on classification in revenue records. However, in the present case, Since, it has been held in the previous paras, that the agriculture land has not been excluded in Section 56(2)(vii)(b), question of whether the land purchased by the appellant is agriculture or not is irrelevant and becomes infructuous. 7.8. In view of the above, the order of assessing officer bringing to tax a sum of Rs. 44,75,913 as income u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) is upheld. Accordingly, the appeal on this issue is dismissed." Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The Ld. AR submitted that the agreement value of the said property agreed between the parties was entered into in 2010 at Rs. 60,00,000/-, whereas the stamp duty value determined b....