2019 (2) TMI 224 - AT - Income Tax

Inclusion of stamp value of the common pathway for making addition U/s.56(2)(vii)(b) - Held that - The stamp value of the assessee s share in the land jointly acquired by them is ₹ 48.48,000/- which is 1/3rd of 1,45,44000/- being the stamp value of the total extend of land. The actual purchase consideration declared by the assessee is only 27,00,000/-. Therefore the Revenue authorities are right in invoking the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) and making addition of ₹ 21,48,000/- which is nothing other than the excess of actual purchase consideration over stamp value of the property acquired by the assessee viz., 48,48,000 (-) 27,00,000/-. Therefore the appeal of the assessee is devoid of merits. Hence we hereby uphold the Orders of the Ld.Revenue Authorities. - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of stamp value of common pathway for addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
The appeal raised by the assessee was against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The case involved the purchase of a property jointly by the assessee and two others, with discrepancies in the stamp valuation and purchase consideration. The Assessing Officer added an amount under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) due to the difference between the stamp value and purchase consideration. The assessee contended that only the stamp valuation of his share in the land should be considered, excluding the common pathway. However, the Assessing Officer rejected this argument and made the addition based on the total stamp valuation. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing the submissions from both sides, analyzed the facts of the case. It noted that the stamp value of the assessee's share in the jointly acquired land was 1/3rd of the total stamp value, while the declared purchase consideration was lower. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue authorities that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) were correctly invoked, resulting in the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and upheld the orders of the Revenue authorities, ultimately dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the correct application of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) concerning the inclusion of stamp value in cases of property acquisition. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering the total stamp valuation in such scenarios, even when the property is jointly acquired. The decision highlighted the significance of adhering to the provisions of the Income Tax Act to determine taxable income accurately, thereby dismissing the appeal based on the assessment of the stamp value discrepancy in the property acquisition.