2021 (2) TMI 322 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) - bringing to tax the stamp duty value of the property purchased which exceeded the actual purchase consideration - HELD THAT - No such on-money transactions are involved in the purchase of the property. The arguments advanced by the Ld.AR is also not disputed by the Revenue, but rather accepted by the Revenue after due verification in the case of the vendor Sri Mittapalli Naveen. Revenue having considered these facts, in the case of the seller of the property, had adopted the sale consideration at ₹ 2,03,65,854/- as against the stamp duty value of the property of ₹ 4,39,23,056/- while invoking the provisions of Section 50C in the assessment Order dated 29/12/2018. Therefore, it is obvious that a contrary view by the Ld.AO to adopt the stamp duty value of the property at ₹ 4,39,23,056/- in the case of the buyer (the assessee) of the property while invoking the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is not appropriate because the Ld.AO had missed out to examine the entire facts of the case. We hereby direct the Ld.AO that, if by virtue of the Order of the Government the value of the property for the purpose of registering the sale deed has been enhanced and has not been interfered by any Judicial/Executive Authority during the relevant period, then adopt the stamp duty value of the property purchased by the assessee for the purpose of assessing the income of the assessee invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act - Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Determination of the correct stamp duty value for the purchased property.
3. Validity of the Government's order enhancing property valuation.
4. Consistency in the valuation approach between the seller and purchaser under Sections 50C and 56(2)(vii)(b).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act:
The core issue was whether the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which taxes the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual purchase consideration as income from other sources, were applicable. The Assessee argued that the property was purchased for ?1,61,00,000 based on an agreement in 2011, and the stamp duty value at that time was ?800 per sq. yard. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) invoked Section 56(2)(vii)(b) and taxed the difference between the stamp duty value of ?4,39,23,056 and the actual purchase consideration, amounting to ?2,78,23,056. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order, stating that the agreement was not registered, and payments were made in cash, thus not exempting the Assessee from the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b).

2. Determination of the Correct Stamp Duty Value:
The Assessee contended that the stamp duty value should be based on the date of the agreement in 2011, when the value was ?800 per sq. yard, rather than the enhanced value of ?3,000 per sq. yard in 2013. The Assessee's argument was supported by a High Court order quashing the Government's enhancement of property valuation. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the High Court's order and, if valid, assess the income without invoking Section 56(2)(vii)(b). If the enhancement was still valid, the AO was instructed to adopt the value determined in the vendor's case.

3. Validity of the Government's Order Enhancing Property Valuation:
The Assessee presented a High Court order that quashed the Government's order enhancing the property valuation from ?800 to ?3,000 per sq. yard. The Tribunal emphasized that if the High Court's order was valid, the stamp duty value should remain at ?800 per sq. yard, making the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) inapplicable. The AO was directed to verify this and proceed accordingly.

4. Consistency in Valuation Approach Between Seller and Purchaser:
The Tribunal noted that in the vendor's case, the AO had adopted a value of ?2,03,65,854 under Section 50C, considering the property's inherent disadvantages and the valuation report from a registered valuer. The Tribunal found it inappropriate for the AO to adopt a different stamp duty value of ?4,39,23,056 for the purchaser (Assessee) under Section 56(2)(vii)(b). The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the same value of ?2,03,65,854 for the Assessee if the Government's enhancement was still valid.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO to verify the High Court's order on property valuation enhancement. If the enhancement was quashed, the AO was directed to assess the income without invoking Section 56(2)(vii)(b). If the enhancement was valid, the AO was instructed to adopt the value of ?2,03,65,854, consistent with the vendor's case. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, ensuring the Assessee received a fair opportunity to present their case.

← Previous Next →