TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 969
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ased the property in F.Y. 2010-11 vide allotment letter dt. 10.04.2010 and in view of proviso to Section 56(2)(x) no addition is called for in the case of the Appellant. (b) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in assessing the gain from sale of office premises as Short Term Capital Gain at Rs. 1,23,900/- (considering cost of acquisition without indexation) as against Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 62,99,032/- (considering cost of acquisition after indexation) declared by the Appellant. The Appellant submit that office premises was purchased in F.Y. 2010-11 which was held for a period of more than 36 months and hence the AO ought to have assessed the gain on sale of office premises as Long Term Capital Gain considering the cost of acquisition after indexation. (c) The CIT(A) erred in disposing off the appeal without admitting additional evidences filed by the Appellant i.e. Allotment letter issued by Shree Naman Developers Limited and Appellant's bank statement for F.Y. 2010-11 and 2012-13. The Appellant submits that all the facts of the case of Appellant are already on record before the AO and CIT(A) and additional evidences filed by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chase consideration disclosed by the assessee at Rs. 71,90,000/- was substantially lower than the stamp duty valuation of Rs. 1,70,76,100/-, resulting in a differential amount of Rs. 98,86,100/-, which was brought to tax under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 2.2 Further, the Assessing Officer treated the difference between the sale consideration of Rs. 1,72,00,000/- and the stamp duty value adopted on the date of purchase, i.e. Rs. 1,70,76,100/-, amounting to Rs. 1,23,900/-, as Short-Term Capital Gain by adopting the stamp duty value as the cost of acquisition. 2.3 Thereafter, a draft assessment order was issued to the assessee. However, in the absence of any further response from the assessee, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment vide order dated 09.04.2021 by making the additions proposed in the show-cause notice. 2.4 Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished by way of additional evidence, the allotment letter dated 10.04.2010 along with relevant bank statements in support of the contention that the property had, in fact, been acquired in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion had taken place several months thereafter, thereby lending credence to the inference drawn by the Assessing Officer that the allotment letter was subsequently created or backdated to confer an artificial antiquity upon the transaction. 2.11 It was also observed that the bank statements relied upon by the assessee reflected multiple inter se transactions with various Naman Group entities, rendering it difficult to independently correlate the payments with the alleged acquisition of the property. 2.12 The Ld. CIT(A) further noted the absence of any contemporaneous documentary material, such as possession letters, construction-linked correspondence, or other evidences demonstrating vesting of rights in the property during Financial Years 2010-11 to 2012-13. 2.13 Emphasizing that the registered conveyance deed had been executed only on 11.08.2017 and the property had thereafter been sold on 13.10.2017, the appellate authority concluded that the holding period was less than thirty-six months and, therefore, the asset could not be regarded as a long-term capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(42A) of the Act. 2.14 On the issue of addition under Section 56(2)(x) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uced during the appellate proceedings were merely clarificatory and corroborative in nature, intended only to substantiate the material already placed before the Assessing Officer. 3.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In our considered opinion, once the learned CIT(A) proceeded to adjudicate the issue on merits after taking into consideration the additional evidences furnished by the assessee, such evidences must be deemed to have been admitted on record. In that view of the matter, any separate observation declining or disapproving the admission of such evidence would be self-contradictory and legally unsustainable. Moreover, where the additional evidence is relevant and has a direct bearing on the adjudication of the controversy involved, the same deserves to be admitted in the interest of substantial justice so as to enable proper and effective adjudication of the dispute on merits. Accordingly, Ground No. 1(c) raised by the assessee stands allowed. 4. Insofar as Ground No. 1(a), challenging the addition of Rs. 98,86,100/- made under section 56(2)(x) of the Act on account of the alleged excess of stamp duty valuation over th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the amendment enlarging the scope of the provision to include inadequate consideration was prospective in operation, as held in Bajrang Lal Naredi vs. ITO [203 TTJ 925] (Ranchi). 4.3 The learned counsel further submitted, without prejudice, that even assuming section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) to be applicable, the statutory framework itself recognizes that where the date of agreement fixing the consideration and the date of registration are different, the stamp duty valuation prevailing on the date of agreement is liable to be adopted, provided consideration or part thereof has been paid through account payee cheque, bank draft or electronic banking channels prior to the date of agreement. Referring to the First and Second Provisos to section 56(2)(x)(b)(B), the learned counsel submitted that the allotment letter dated 10.04.2010 constituted the operative agreement for transfer of the property and that substantial consideration had already been paid through banking channels during Financial Years 2010-11 and 2012-13. 4.4 Inviting our attention to page 88 of the paper book, the learned counsel submitted that the stamp duty valuation prevailing during Financial Year 2010-11 was Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s part payment of consideration, though admittedly tendered earlier, was realized through banking channels on a subsequent date. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid approach of the lower authorities is unduly hyper-technical, contrary to the legislative intent underlying the provisos, and unsustainable in law. 5.3 It is not in dispute that the allotment letter dated 10.04.2010 specifically records receipt of cheque payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the assessee. The explanation furnished by the assessee that the original cheque could not be realized owing to technical banking reasons and that a substitute cheque was thereafter honoured through banking channels has neither been disproved by any cogent evidence nor found to be inherently improbable. Merely because the cheque amount ultimately stood debited from the bank account of the assessee on 05.08.2010 cannot, by itself, lead to the inference that the allotment letter was fabricated or subsequently created. Once the cheque had already been tendered by the assessee, the timing of its presentation or encashment substantially remained within the domain and control of the recipient developer. The assessee cannot be denied the ....