TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 604
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able for the properties purchased prior to 1 April, 2017. b) The Ld. NFAC erred in laws & facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 34,06,250/- u/s. 56(2)(x) of the Act being excess amount of stamp duty value of property as on the date of registration over the amount of agreed consideration. c) The Ld. NFAC has erred in law & facts in upholding the aforesaid addition without appreciating that the computation u/s. 56(2)(x) of the Act ought to be based on the stamp duty value as on the date of agreement fixing consideration i.e. date of booking and not as on the date of registration. 3. All the above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other." 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present dispute are that the assessee, an individual, filed her return of income on 16.06.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 3,09,350/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, inter alia, for examination of applicability of Section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act"). The statutory notices under the Act were issued and complied with. 2.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was explained by the assessee that she, alo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by any stretch of imagination. Immovable property is not conveyed by delivery of possession, but by a duly registered deed. Further, it is the date of execution of registered document, not the date of delivery of possession or the date of registration of document which is relevant. In the case of Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC), CIT v. Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC), it is held that once the executed documents are registered, the transfer will take place on the date of execution of documents and not on the date of registration of documents. 3.9 Section 56(2)(x) clearly stipulates that where any immoveable property is received for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding Rs. 50000/-, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration shall be chargeable to tax in the hands of the individual or HUF as income from other sources. It is applicable from AY 2018-19." 2.4 Further in Para No.5.1 also the AO declined to accept allotment letter as agreement. The relevant finding of the AO is reproduced as under: "5.1. In this case there is no agreement made but only....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onwards. Thus it is crystal clear that section 56(2)(x) is applicable in this case. 5.8. In this case the sale/purchase consideration as per the allotment letter dated 08.12.2010 is Rs. 83,52,000/- and the value as per Stamp Duty Valuation Authority as per the agreement to sale dated 01.09.2017 is at Rs. 1,51,64,500/-, Thus the consideration for which the property purchased is less than the stamp duty value. Hence, the difference of Rs. 68,12,500/- (Rs. 1,51,64,500 Rs. 83,52,000/-) is to be assessed as "income from other sources Accordingly. Rs. 68,12,500/- is assessed as Income from Other Sources u/s. 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the property has been purchased jointly by the assessee and her husband Shri Sanjay Jaidev Poddar (AACPP8850B) the income from other sources u/s. 56(2)(x) arrived at Rs. 68,12,500/-, has to be assessed equally in the hands of both the assessee and her spouse. Hence the 50% of the same is assessed in the hands of the assessee i.e. Rs. 34,06,25/-." 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) substantially affirmed the addition, inter alia, on the premise that the assessee had failed to place on record any credible or cogent evidence to d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioned upon demonstrable financial transactions through verifiable modes. 4.1 In the present case, the Ld. CIT(A) has declined relief to the assessee primarily on the ground that no satisfactory evidence was furnished to establish that any part of the consideration had been paid through banking channels at or before the time of allotment/agreement. At the same time, it is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer himself has recorded that certain payments aggregating to Rs. 1,29,600/- were made by the assessee at the time of allotment in the year 2010. The controversy, therefore, does not rest on the absence of payment per se, but on the lack of verification as to the mode of such payments and whether they satisfy the statutory requirement of the second proviso. 4.2 We find that though the AO held that allotment letter was not in the nature of agreement to sale, the assessee has placed reliance on judicial precedents wherein it has been held that an allotment letter, coupled with payment of consideration, may partake the character of an agreement to sell for the purposes of Section 56(2)(x). Before us the Ld. Counsel of the assessee relied on the decision of Pramod Salvi V....