TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 174
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come Tax Act [hereinafter referred as "The Act"]. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2020-21 on 07.11.2020 declaring loss of Rs. 16,005/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the low income in comparison to very high investment and also to examine the purchase value of properties which was less than the stamp duty value. In the course of assessment, it transpired that the assessee had purchased nine properties during the year, the stamp duty value of which was much higher than sale consideration as per sale deeds. The difference between the stamp duty value and the sale consideration in respect of these properties was to the extent of Rs. 3,29,09,469/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... executed on 05/09/2019 prior to payment of NA conversion charges (18/09/2019) and grant of NA permission (27/09/2019), thereby proving that the lands retained agricultural character at the time of Banakhat. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in not considering the first and second provisos to section 56(2)(x), which clearly mandate that where consideration is paid by account payee cheque on or before the date of agreement, the stamp duty value as on the date of agreement (05/09/2019) should be adopted. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition u/s 56(2)(x) without appreci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the appellant had acted bona fide, disclosed all material facts, and paid applicable stamp duty on NA lands at the time of registration, resulting in no loss to the Revenue. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C mechanically, without appreciating that such levy is purely consequential to the disputed addition. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the act 11. Appellant craves leave to add, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing in the sale deeds. Further that no evidence was brought on record regarding encashment of cheques towards advance payment made by the assessee on the date or prior to the date of Banakhat. He, therefore, strongly supported the order of the lower authorities. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. The fact that the assessee had purchased various pieces of land during the current year is not under dispute. The difference between the stamp duty value and the sale consideration as per sale deeds being Rs. 3,29,09,469/- is also not under dispute. The grievance of the assessee is that, while making the impugned addition under section 56(2)(x) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has adopted the stamp duty value prevailing on the date of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....certain payment was referred being made by cheque at the time of Banakhat. However, neither the date of Banakhat nor the cheque No. and the date of cheque is appearing in the sale deeds. On the other hand, in some of the cases the difference between the advance payment as per Banakhat and the final sale deed is of few months only. The proviso to section 56(2)(x) of the Act stipulates that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, then the stamp duty value on the date of agreement is required to be taken for the purpose of this sub-section, provided that sale consideration is paid by account pay cheque or through banking channel on or befor....