9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... state were sold at a consideration of Rs. 42,55,045/- and profit arising from the sale was declared by the assessee under the head "long term capital gain" in the return of income filed for the year under consideration. Consistent with the stand taken in the earlier year, the A.O. held that the profit arising from the sale of property was chargeable to tax under the head profits and gains from business or profession. He also found that the market value of the property sold by the assessee as per stamp duty authority was Rs. 5,95,78,500/-. When the assessee was asked by the A.O. to explain the vast difference between such market value and the sale consideration shown, it was explained by the assessee that the relevant sale agreements were made earlier in the year 1997 and 1999 and since the completion of sales had taken time because of the delay in obtaining the required permission from the Charity Commissioner and RBI and under UL (C&R) Act, there was a vast difference in the market value of the property. This explanation of the assessee was not found acceptable by the A.O. According to him, the value adopted by the stamp duty authority was based on the current market trend and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of the assessee agreed to be sold to Avadh Narayan Sing & Others on 12-3-1999 by accepting their offer in response to the tenders invited by the assessee on 12-3-1999 and the total consideration of Rs. 25 lacs was also received upto 3-5-1999, the conveyance deed could be executed only on 3-8-2004 for want of the approval from Charity Commissioner and clearance from ULC authority which took a lot of time. He submitted that similarly the another property of the assessee was agreed to be sold to Tarashankar B. Choubey on 6-10-1982 and even though the agreement was also executed on 7-2-1997 accepting part consideration of the same out of the total consideration of Rs. 29.04 lacs, the conveyance deed could be executed finally on 8-11-2004 as a result of delay in getting required clearance certificate from Income Tax Authorities u/s 230-A of the Act and the adjudication by the office of Superintendent of Stamps. He contended that the sale consideration of all these properties, however, was agreed at the time of original agreement and there is nothing to show that the assessee has received anything more than the consideration so agreed on transfer of these two properties. He submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proviso to section 56- (2)(vii), where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value on the date of agreement is to be taken for the purposes of clause (vii) of sub-section 2 of section 56. He contended that these provisions specifically made in the statute clearly shows the legislative intention that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for a transfer of capital asset and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value on the date of agreement should be taken. 6. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, strongly relied on the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) in support of the Revenue's case on this issue. He contended that the specific provisions as contained in section 43-CA(3) and 56(2)(vii) of the Act referred to by the ld. counsel for the assessee are not there in section 50-C of the Act and the same therefore cannot be relied upon or referred to while deciding the issue involved in the case of the assessee where section 50-C of the Act is applicable. He contended that for applying section 50-C, it is not necessary for the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod was required to be extended and such extension was ultimately granted by Charity Commissioner only on 20-4-2004. Accordingly the final conveyance was executed on 3-8-2004. The delay in executing the final conveyance of the property thus was because of the delay in getting the required clearances from the concerned authorities, which was beyond the control of the assessee. Similarly, there was a delay in executing the conveyance of the other property agreed to be sold by the assessee to Tarashankar B. Choubey for which the agreement was executed on 7-2-1997 itself and even the consideration of Rs. 10 lacs was partly received by the assessee on the date of agreement itself. The conveyance deed, however, could be executed only on 8-11-2004 and this delay as explained by the assessee with reference to the sequence of events that occurred with the supporting evidence was beyond the control of the assessee. 9. In the case of M. Siva Parvathi & Ors (supra) relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee, a similar issue arose for the consideration of Visakhapatnam Bench of this Tribunal. In the said case, both the parties to the sale deed had confirmed of having entered into a sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
