TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 282
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion for rectification of the order passed by the learned CIT(Appeals), anticipating that the learned CIT(Appeals) would rectify the mistake, as according to the Chartered Accountant, that since the difference in actual sale consideration and the value adopted by the DVO is less than 5%, that is, approximately 4.3%, and is within the tolerable limit prescribed under section 50C of the Act, he was pursuing the application under section 154 before the learned CIT(Appeals). 4. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that, as the application filed by the assessee under section 154 before the learned CIT(Appeals) was rejected on 16.3.2026, holding that the issue is debatable and not a mistake apparent on record, the assessee immediately, on the advice of the Chartered Accountant, filed the appeal on 01.04.2026, which resulted in a delay of 60 days. 5. Therefore, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that since the assessee was pursuing an alternative remedy by filing an application under section 154 before the learned CIT(Appeals), the assessee was under the bona fide belief / impression that the learned CIT(Appeals) would rectify the mistake, and, therefore, did not prefer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue (FMV) and the sale consideration shown, then no addition is required to be made. 12. Learned counsel for the assessee further, referring to para 14 of the decision, submitted that the Tribunal also took note of the fact that though this provision had been brought into the statute with effect from 01.04.2019, since various courts have held that the same is a beneficial provision, the benefit should be given retrospective effect, and thus concluded that the same is applicable even for assessment years prior to the assessment year 2019-20. 13. Learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that a similar view has been taken in the case of Shri Vipul Otarmal Jain versus ITO in ITA No. 439/MUM/2026 dated 8-4-2026. Learned counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Bench in the case of M/s John Fowler India Private Limited vs. DCIT in ITA No. 7545/MUM/2014 dated 25-1-2017, to which one of us is a party (JM), and submitted that the coordinate bench, following the decision of the Jaipur Bench in the case of Smt. Sita Bai Khetan vs. ITO in ITA No. 823/JP/2013 dated 27-7-2016, held that since the difference between the valuation adopted by the st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so to Section 50C provides that where the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority does not exceed 10% of the consideration received shall be taken as full value consideration i.e, if the difference is less than 10%, the same can be taken as share market value. Though this provision has been brought in the statute w.e.f. 01/04/2019, however, Courts have held that the same is beneficial provision, therefore, benefit should be given with retrospective effect. Thus, we hold that if the difference between the actual sale consideration & FMV determined by the valuation officer is less than 10%, then no addition should be made u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b). 15. Now, in this case from the perusal of DVO's report, we find that at page 12, DVO has given the sale instance and the sale consideration of all those properties, the average of which comes to Rs. 6,54,60,425/- as shown by the Id. Counsel before us. The DVO has only taken the average of two sale instances to arrive at the valuation of Rs. 6,65,90,250/-, but in its annexure he has taken average of three sale properties in the same vicinity. Thus, looking all these facts we are in tandem with the cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sold on the same day though be separated agreements, is more than the stamp duty valuation by Rs. 3,00,00,000/-. Even assuming for a movement that the sale consideration in respect of Plot in survey No. 22 and 42 is less than the stamp valuation it is Rs. 33,48,284/- which is less than 10% of the stamp duty valuation of the said plot. Therefore, in view of the ratio of the decisions relied on by the assessee, the assessee should succeeded in its appeal. The Jaipur Bench in the case of Smt. Sita Bai Ketan (Supra) held as under:- 4.2 "We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Hon'ble coordinate Bench in ITA No. 1543/PN/2007 in the case of Rahul Constructions Vs. DCIT (Supra) has held as under:- "We find that the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT vs. Harpreet Hotels (P) LTd. Vide ITA No. 1156-1160/Pn/2007 and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee had dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue where the CIF(A) had deleted the unexplained investment in house construction on the ground that the difference between the figure shown by the assessee and the figure of the DVO is hardly 10 ....