2024 (9) TMI 1188 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 on the order of the National Faceless Assessment Unit - Application of provisions of sec 56(2)(x) - HELD THAT - The jurisdiction belongs to the PCIT, Jaipur-1, and contentions raised by the assessee has no force as per the records available with the revenue. Since, the assessee has not given any proof that he has corrected his address on the data base of the revenue the jurisdiction rest with the ITO, Ward 1(2), Jaipur and consequently, PCIT, Jaipur has appropriate jurisdiction as per provisions of section 263 - On the contrary, assessee was confronted to at time of hearing to submit any proof for change of address in the PAN data base he remained silent. He did not produce any record to support this contention. Merely, filing the tax return to a different address without correcting records of the revenue in the PAN data base, the contentions raised by the assessee has no force and therefore, ground Nos. 1 2 raised by the assessee stands dismissed. Applicability of Section 56(2)(x) - On comparing both deed, the bench noted that the area and consideration in both deed are different and therefore, the contentions so as to non applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(x) as contended the deed itself does not matches and therefore, the contention raised by the assessee has been misplaced and misguided fact as argued by assessee. There is no reference of such deviation as to why the same has happened is not mentioned in the submission so filed. Had it been so the assessee should have clarified that the both the deeds relate to the same property - We not that the reference to the payment are also not dealt with the payment made. Even the details of the TDS deducted as per provision of section 194IA has not been placed on record even though as contended by the ld. DR. Assessee failed to convince that the agreement dated 10.04.2015 relates to the same property and therefore, provision of section 56(2)(x) should have not been applied and if so of 2015. But here the fact as discussed being different we are of the considered opinion that considering the facts available on record we do not find any merits to deviate from the finding of recorded by the PCIT. Therefore, ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the PCIT, Jaipur to invoke Section 263.
2. Applicability of Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Validity of the agreement dated 10.04.2015 and its implications.
4. Payments made by the assessee and their recognition under the law.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the PCIT, Jaipur to Invoke Section 263:

The assessee contended that the PCIT, Jaipur had no jurisdiction over him as his address was in Gurgaon, Haryana. However, the Tribunal found that the jurisdiction as per the PAN database and the records available with the revenue rested with the PCIT, Jaipur-1. The assessee failed to provide any proof of change of address in the PAN database. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's contention, confirming that the PCIT, Jaipur-1 had the appropriate jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Section 263.

2. Applicability of Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act:

The assessee argued that the transaction was covered by the first proviso of Section 56(2)(x), which allows adopting the stamp duty value as of the date of the agreement if part consideration is paid otherwise than by cash. The PCIT noted discrepancies in the payments and agreements provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the agreement dated 10.04.2015 and the subsequent agreement dated 31.01.2018 had different area measurements and consideration amounts, indicating they did not relate to the same property. Additionally, the Tribunal noted the lack of evidence for TDS deductions as required under Section 194IA. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the PCIT's finding that the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) were applicable, dismissing the assessee's contention.

3. Validity of the Agreement Dated 10.04.2015 and Its Implications:

The assessee claimed that the agreement dated 10.04.2015 should govern the transaction, thus exempting it from the provisions of Section 56(2)(x). However, the Tribunal noted significant differences between the 2015 and 2018 agreements, including discrepancies in the area and consideration amounts. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the claim that both agreements related to the same property. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the agreement dated 10.04.2015 could not be used to claim exemption under Section 56(2)(x).

4. Payments Made by the Assessee and Their Recognition Under the Law:

The assessee provided details of payments made through cheques, arguing that these payments should qualify for the exemption under the first proviso to Section 56(2)(x). The PCIT observed that the payments were not made by the assessee but by a joint account holder, and the TDS details were not provided. The Tribunal agreed with the PCIT's findings, noting that the payments were not adequately substantiated and did not meet the conditions for exemption under Section 56(2)(x). The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order to reassess the income, dismissing the assessee's appeal.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the jurisdiction of the PCIT, Jaipur-1, and upholding the applicability of Section 56(2)(x). The Tribunal found the agreements and payments provided by the assessee to be inconsistent and inadequately substantiated, thereby supporting the PCIT's decision to invoke Section 263 and reassess the income.