TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1900
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lotment cannot be considered as date of agreement and therefore the benefit as provided by the legislature in case where there is difference between date of agreement and execution, is not available in the instant case" 2. The assessee is an individual and filed the original return of income for AY 2017-18 on 26/10/2017. The Assessing Officer (AO) received information from DIT (I&CI) Mumbai that the assessee during the year under consideration, has purchased an immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 5,02,31,016 against the stamp duty value of Rs. 8,69,28,500. The AO was of the view that to the extent of difference between the purchase consideration and the stamp duty value, the income has escaped the assessment and therefore initiated reassessment proceedings by issue of notice under section 148A of the income tax act (the Act). The AO, after passing an order under clause (d) of section 148A issued a notice under section 148 requiring the assessee to file the return of income. The AO also called on the assessee to file the necessary details and to explain why addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) should not be made for the difference between the purchase value and the stam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....greement was entered much before the introduction of this provision. 6. All these details were forwarded to the AO and he was asked to conduct enquiries in support of his contention that the project has not been commenced in FY 2010-11. Further, the AO was asked to get details of plan approval, details of booking by other customers in that venture, subsequent sale of flats etc. In this connection, a remand report was called for vide notice dated 08.07.2024. As there was no reply received from the AO, reminders dated 31.07.2024, 19.08.2024, 04.09.2024 and 26.09.2024 were issued, wherein the specific details were called for. However, the AO did not submit any remand report. 7. Upon verification of the details submitted by the appellant, it is noticed that the appellant has filed necessary evidences regarding the advance payment in FY 2010-11 and that could not be controverted by the AO otherwise. As the appellant has already paid the advance in the FY 2010-11, section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the IT Act cannot be invoked as per the market rate prevailing in FY 2016-17 at the time of registration. In view of the above, section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the IT Act is not applicable an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after the 1st day of October, 2009 but before the 1st day of April, 2017,- (a) **** (b) any immovable property,- (i) without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property; (ii) for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration: Provided that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement may be taken for the purposes of this sub-clause: Provided further that the said proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration referred to therein, or a part thereof, has been paid by any mode other than cash on or before the date of the agreement for the transfer of such immovable property; 7. From the perusal of above provisions, it is clear that where th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as on date of allotment has to be treated as stamp duty value for the purpose of aforesaid provision of section 56(2)(x) of the Act and since at that time payment made was more than the stamp duty value therefore, no addition can be made. Thus, the aforesaid finding of the Hon'ble CIT (A), which is in consonance with the provisions of the Act and the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, is upheld. Accordingly, the revenue appeal is dismissed." 8. Considering that the facts in assessee's case and respectfully following the ratio of the above decision we hold that the date of letter of allotment should be considered for the purpose of proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b). Therefore the addition made by the AO by considering the stamp duty value on the date of registration is not tenable and liable to be deleted. Accordingly we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT appeals in deleting the addition made by the AO. 9. In result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11-03-2025. ============= Document 1 LODHA BUILDING A BETTER LIFE Annexure :- 2 Letter of Allotment Dear Mr. SAHIL R. LODHA, Mr. RAJ....