TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1715
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....after referred to as 'the Act') by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, (hereinafter referred to as the 'AO') pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The assessee submits that the learned assessing authority and the Honourable Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) have passed the impugned order against all the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The assessee submits that the neither the learned assessing authority and the Appellate Authority has given due weightage to the submissions made in this regard and has drawn conclusions on suspicions and surmises which is not correct in law. 3. The learned assessing authority has not given ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ransaction as early as 2014 itself and he has also started paying the consideration in regard to the said transaction from 2008 itself as evidenced by the schedule of payments placed before the learned assessing authority and the Appellate Authority as well. 9. The assessee respectfully submits that the contention of the Appellate authority that the agreement should have been registered is not correct, as the reading of the proviso does not place such a restriction and requires only the issues referred in para 7 above, to entitle the assessee to use the option available in the provision to Section 56 (2) (x) of the Act. 10. The assessee submits that he may be given an opportunity of personal hearing in case of any clarific....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion (SDV) of the property was Rs. 51,31,245/-. Therefore, the AO proposed to add the difference of Rs. 8,60,540/- between the actual consideration and stamp duty valuation under section 56(2)(x) of the Act for which proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated. 4.1 Since the possession was taken over by the assessee in 2014 itself, the assessee claimed that proviso to Section 56(2)(x) allows for adoption of the value as on the date of agreement to purchase the property i.e. in 2008. Rejecting the assessee's contention, the AO made an addition of Rs. 8,60,540/- under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 4.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee's contentions were rejected by the CIT(A) with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orities. An assessee cannot substitute the official Guideline Value with their own calculations or PWD rates unless they follow the procedure of referring the matter to a Valuation Officer under Section 50C(2), which was not pursued here in the requisite manner during assessment. 5.7. The law explicitly uses the Stamp Duty Value at the time of registration unless a specific, fixed agreement exists prior to that date. Since the registration happened in September 2017 (A.Y. 2018-19), the prevailing Stamp Duty Value of Rs. 51,31,245 is the correct legal benchmark. The difference of Rs. 8,60,540 clearly exceeds the statutory threshold and is squarely covered under the charging provisions of Section 56(2)(x)." 5. We have heard the le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent 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 agreement may be taken for the purposes of this sub-clause : Provided further that the provisions of the first proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration referred to therein, or a part thereof, has been paid by way of an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft or by use of electronic clearing system through a bank account or through such other electronic mode as may be prescribed, on or before the date of agreement for transfer of such immovable property: Provided also that where the stamp duty value of immovable property is di....