TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 850
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, it was seen that the assessee had failed to file the return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18. In view of this fact, the assessee was requested to submit the details regarding the transactions carried out amounting to Rs. 53,58,700/-. The assessee's case was re-opened u/s. 147 of the Act and notice u/s. 148 of the act was issued upon the assessee on 29.03.2024. Further, notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act were issued upon the assessee on 19.12.2024, 08.01.2025. It was seen that the set-forth value and the fair market value of the immovable property was Rs. 52,55,900/- and Rs. 59,29,650/- respectively. In view of this fact, the assessee was requested to explain why the difference amount of Rs. 6,73,750/- (i.e. Rs. 59,29,650/- minus Rs. 52,55,900/-) should not be treated as undisclosed income under the head income from other sources u/s. 56(2)(x) of the Act. The assessee failed to clarify the said transaction with proper documentary evidences. In view of this fact, the AO concluded the assessment and added the amount of Rs. 6,73,750/- to the total income of the assessee on account of income from other sources for the year under consideration." 3. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs.7,35,826.00 TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED Rs.52,53,900.00 6. Admittedly, the above sale agreement has been entered into by the husband of the Assessee and the Assessee with owner in the year 2013 itself. However, the sale deed has been executed subsequently on 17.06.2016. The amendment of provisions of Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act has been brought vide Finance Act, 2018 which is applicable for assessment year 2019-20 and onwards. 7. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in an identical circumstances held that the said provisions of Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act is not applicable considering the date of agreement prior to the said amendment. The relevant portion of the Order of the Tribunal in the case of the Smt. Kajari Banarjee (supra) is reproduced as under:- "010. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that there is a difference between the purchase price of the flat and the value as per Stamp Valuation Authority. However, as a matter of fact the property was purchased in the earlier year as observed by us hereinabove in view of the payments being made in entirety in the earlier financial year and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2015 acknowledging the receipt of the said amount and also mentioning the other terms and conditions of further payments along with delivery schedule of the flat etc. The said letter also mentions that the assessee has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 49,53,375/- on or before 28.02.2015 which according to the AO was not possible since the letter is dated 02.03.2015. The AO further found certain other discrepancies such as assessee's signature not found in the allotment letter etc., and accordingly held that the letter of allotment cannot be held as agreement to sell. The AO therefore made addition considering the market value on the date of sale and the agreement vale by applying the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. Before proceeding further we will look at the provisions of the said section as extracted below - (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of subsection (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", namely :- **** (x) where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after the 1st day of April, 2017,- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 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 subclause and said proviso to be applied only where the amount of consideration or a part thereof is paid by an account payee cheque or bank draft or through online clearing system of a bank or through any other electronic mode. In assessee's case it is an undisputed fact that the assessee has made part payment towards purchase consideration on 06.02.2015 and therefore the first proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) is applicable in assessee's case. However the dispute is whether the exception under the first proviso is applicable since the same mentions the date of agreement to be considered and that in assessee's case whether the letter of allotment is the agreement to sell in order to consider the stamp duty value on that date and not the date of sale. In this regard we notice that the coordinate bench in the case of Parth Dashrath Gandhi vs ACIT (ITA No.1990/Mum/2022 dated 31.01.2023) has considered a similar issue where it is held that - 6. We heard the parties and perused the record. We noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pra) is applicable to the facts of the present case. The decision rendered in the case of Mr Sajjanraj Mehta by the co-ordinate bench is extracted below, for the sake of convenience:- "10. We have gone through the order of the A.O, Ld. CIT(A) and various submissions of assessee dated 06-10-2021. Vide pg no-23 to 27 of paper book we have observed the payment made by the assessee to the developer on 17-102011 amounting to Rs 14 lacs vide cheque no 906740, Bank of Maharashtra to enter into an agreement cum acknowledgement of payment made and other terms and conditions about the property. This agreement between assessee and developer clearly confirms the amount of consideration along with other terms and conditions relating to levy of stamp duty, service tax and other charges to be paid by the assessee. 11. The finding of the A.O vide pg no-4, para-2.6 wherein he observed that assessee has deposited Rs 14 lacs with the developer to year mark the said premises for Rs 70 lacs. Even if for the time being it is assumed that this agreement is merely a letter of intent, still amount mentioned in this so called letter of intent can't be changed by either of the party. At the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Dapodikar v/s ITO Ward - 6(2), Pune ITA No. 1747/PN/2018 dtd. 30/04/2019(Pune) (Trib) Where date of agreement for fixing amount of consideration for purchase of a plot of land and date of registration of sale deed were different but assessee, prior to date of agreement, had paid a part of consideration by cheque, provisos to section 56(2)(vii)(b) being fulfilled, stamp value as on date of agreement should be applied for purpose of said section d) Ashutosh Jhavs. ITO Ward-2(5), Ranchi ITA No. 188/Ranchi/2019 dtd. 30/04/2021, [190 ITD 450 (Kolkata - Trib.).] Where assessee purchased a property and made part payment of sale consideration by cheque on very next day of execution of purchase agreement and registry was done after a year, since such part payment made by cheque on very next day of execution of agreement was towards fulfilment of terms of purchase contract itself and there was no mala fide or false claim on part of assessee, no addition could be made on account of difference between amount of sale consideration for property shown in purchase agreement and stamp duty value of said property on date of registry by invoking section 56(2)(vii)(b) e) Dy....