9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d (2) though, the plots were allotted in the year 2005, the registration took place in the year 2007 by paying the balance consideration. As could be seen from the allotment letter dated 30.07.2005 as well as the explanation offered by the assessee vide letter dated 07.02.2014 during the course of assessment proceedings, the registration could not take place due to mortgage of plots with the HUDA and on release of the mortgaged plots by HUDA on 31.01.2007 vide Lr.No.7676/MP2/PLG/HUDA, the registration took place on 09.03.2007. The A.O. could not produce any documentary evidence that the assessee and his brothers made unexplained investment in purchase of property. Even if at all any unexplained investment has been made by the assessee an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that the assessee could not prove by any cogent evidence that he had not paid any amount other than the amount claimed to have been paid, in the light of the fact that the property was valued at ₹ 66,50,000 by the SRO. 4. Any other ground(s) that may be urged at the time of hearing. Ground Nos. 1 and 4 are general in nature and therefore, it need not be adjudicated. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee an individual is the proprietor of M/s. Nav Durga Dal Industries which is engaged in manufacturing and trading of pulses. For the impugned assessment year, the assessee filed its return of income on 08.10.2007 declaring income of ₹ 6,12,709. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 28.07.2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Mr. Sudha Kiran before the SRO, Rajendra Nagar, the total market value of the above mentioned property as on the date of registration was at ₹ 66,50,000 and it is evident from the registered sale deed that the stamp duty of ₹ 5,89,470 and registration fee of ₹ 33,950 were paid by the assessee and his brothers on 09.03.2007 on the chargeable value of ₹ 66,50,000. Therefore, the A.O. called for explanation of assessee in respect of the difference of ₹ 55,10,000 between the market/chargeable value of ₹ 66,55,000 and the total consideration of ₹ 11,40,000 as per the sale deed. In response to the said notice, assessee submitted that the plots were allotted to them vide allotment letter dated 30th July, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O. had erroneously applied section 50C while invoking section 69B which had no basis. The Ld. CIT(A) after careful perusal of the provisions of section 50C and 69B of the Act, deleted the addition of ₹ 18,36,667 by observing that the A.O. has erred referring the provisions of section 50C, while applying the provisions of section 69B. Section 50C applies for computation of capital gains and consequently is applicable for the seller of a capital asset and not its purchaser as in the case of assessee. The presumption created by section 50C, has no relevance for the assessee. The relevant observations of the Ld. CIT(A) are as under : 5.1. I have considered the facts on record and the submissions of the AR. The sale consideration reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the fact that the payment for the land was described in the statement of affairs as an 'advance' and that therefore, the sum of ₹ 3,80,000 could not be considered as full sale consideration. I do not agree with this view. Until such time that the land was registered in favour of the appellant, any payment made for it was required to be recorded as an advance whether it was a part payment or a full payment. The reference to the sum of ₹ 3,80,000 as an 'advance' cannot, therefore, lead to any inference adverse to the appellant. 5.5. The Assessing Officer has also referred to the fact that the land in question was part of the land mortgaged to HUDA and therefore, could not have been transferred to the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Raj) was not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the burden was on the Revenue to prove that the actual consideration was more than what was disclosed by the assessee. It is evident from the material on record that the sale consideration was at ₹ 11,40,000 which was received by the vendor. In my view mere payment of extra stamp duty to fulfil the Government norms, may not come in the line of any unexplained investment by the assessee and his brothers in purchase of property in question, unless any evidence is available with the department that the assessee and his brothers has paid any extra sum, for invoking the provisions of section 69B. In the instant case, the A.O. has mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
