TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 2038
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A)"], for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - 1. For that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case, to the extent prejudicial to the interests of the appellant and is opposed to the principles of equity, natural Justice and fair play. 2. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction. 3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition to the tune of Rs. 34,82,499/- made u/s. 43CA of the Income Tax Act in respect of transfer of an asset (Other than capital asset). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eclaring a total income of Rs. 4,68,430. During the assessment proceedings, in response to the statutory notices, the assessee submitted that during the year under consideration he sold a duplex flat for a sum of Rs. 1,04,17,500, in respect of which the sale deed was registered in the month of June 2017, and the purchaser recovered TDS on the sale consideration at 1%, i.e. Rs. 1,04,175. After considering the submissions of the assessee, notice was issued to the assessee to show cause as to why the stamp duty value on the date of the sale deed should not be considered as the full value of consideration for computing the profits and gains from transfer of the immovable property under section 43CA of the Act. In response, the assessee submitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of sale consideration by the purchaser and handover of the possession of the property to the purchaser. Since, in the present case, on the date of the agreement in 2014, the assessee had not received the full value of consideration and possession of the property was not handed over, the learned CIT(A) held that no sale transaction took place in 2014. It was further held that the full value of consideration was received in the year 2017 and possession of the property was also handed over by the assessee to the buyer in the year 2017, and therefore, the stamp duty value as on the date of registration of the sale deed should be taken into consideration for the purpose of section 43CA of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (4) The provisions of sub-section (3) shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration or a part thereof has been received by any mode other than cash on or before the date of agreement for transfer of the asset." 8. Therefore, as per the provisions of section 43CA(1) of the Act, where the consideration received or accrued as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a land or building is less than the value adopted by the stamp duty authority, then the value so adopted shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer for the purpose of computing profits and gains from transfer of such asset. The provisions of section 43CA(3) further provide that where the date ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he submissions of the assessee and considered the stamp duty value as on the date of the sale deed, i.e. 12/06/2017, and made the impugned addition of Rs.34,82,499 under section 43CA of the Act. 10. From the perusal of the sale deed executed on 12/06/2017, forming part of the paper book from pages 2-27, we find that the assessee sold Apartment No. FF - 1 and SF - 1 admeasuring 2522 ft² super built-up area in Jasmine Chalet. We further find that the sale consideration agreed between the parties was Rs. 1,04,17,500, which, as evident from pages 6 and 7 of the sale deed, was paid in various instalments. We further find that till the date of the agreement for sale, i.e. 03/08/2014, the assessee was paid Rs. 10 lakh on 25/06/2014, Rs. 8 ....