9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 944X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO. An alternative contention of the ld AR remained that if the sale is considered to have come into effect on the date of registration of sale deed i.e. 10th March, 2004, then the relevant AY for the invocation of provisions of s. 50C of the Act would be the AY 2004-05 and not the AY 2003-04 under consideration. Since we have remanded the matter to the file of the AO, the AO is directed to consider this aspect of the matter while deciding the issue as directed above. The ground No. 1 is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Valuation of the property - difference between the value of land estimated by the Valuation Officer and shown by the assessee - CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO for invoking provisions of s. 50C and made addition - HELD THAT:- We concur with the contention of the ld AR which is also supported by the decision of Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Navneet Kumar Thakkar vs. ITO [ 2007 (3) TMI 317 - ITAT JODHPUR] that provisions of s. 50C cannot be invoked in absence of a registered document i.e. in absence of the value adopted or assessed by any authority of State Government i.e. the stamp valuation authority for the purpose of paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n at ₹ 1 lac in the registered sale deed executed on 11th March, 2004 and this time (sic) valuation authority valued the property at ₹ 13,05,880 for the purpose of stamp duty. The AO being not satisfied with the cause shown by the assessee, to the notice issued by AO under s. 50C of the Act, computed long-term capital gain for this property by taking the sale consideration at ₹ 13,05,880 resulting in addition of ₹ 4,29,372. The same has been upheld by learned CIT(A). 4. The contention of learned Authorised Representative remained that after having received the entire sale consideration, possession having been handed over to the purchaser, it is the duty of the buyer to execute a sale deed and to get the same registered in their name. If the buyer fails to get the sale deed registered then it is not for the seller to force the buyer to get the sale deed registered because the seller has received the entire sale consideration on 4th Sept., 2002 which he is entitled to and stamp duty, if any, and other charges have to be borne by the purchaser. Only to get clear title of a property documents are being registered with the Sub-Registrar of documents but otherw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n consideration i.e. 11th May, 2002 and handed over the possession of the property in question by the seller to the assessee (sic) on the payment of entire consideration on 4th Sept., 2002 has not been accepted by the lower authorities in absence of a written agreement on those dates. With the above contentions, the assessee intended to make a case that sale was completed well before coming into operation of the provisions of s. 50C of the Act w.e.f. 1st April, 2003, hence the provisions of s. 50C of the Act are not applicable in the present case merely because the sale deed was registered two years later on 10th March, 2004. The lower authorities have disbelieved the above submissions of the assessee that the agreement to sale of the property in question was entered into on 11th May, 2002 when the first instalment out of the amount in consideration was paid by cheque or on the date of payment of entire amount in consideration i.e. 4th Sept., 2002 since a written agreement has been entered into between the parties about the sale of the property in question only on 29th March, 2003. The copy of this agreement has been placed at pp. 7 to 10 of the paper book wherein vide clause No. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to have come into effect on the date of registration of sale deed i.e. 10th March, 2004, then the relevant assessment year for the invocation of provisions of s. 50C of the Act would be the asst. yr. 2004-05 and not the asst. yr. 2003-04 under consideration. Since we have remanded the matter to the file of the AO, the AO is directed to consider this aspect of the matter while deciding the issue as directed above. The ground No. 1 is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No. 2 8. The assessee sold a land bearing No. 23, Dharm Park, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur for a sale consideration of ₹ 3,70,000 to Shri Vijay Bhandari through an agreement to sale dt. 7th June, 2002 (page Nos. 20 to 22 of the paper book). The AO initially applied a value of amount of ₹ 9 lacs on the plea that the Sub-Registrar (4), Jaipur had conveyed land rate of ₹ 3,000 per sq. mtr. On the objection of the assessee the AO referred the matter for valuation to the Asstt. Valuation Officer who adopted the value of land at ₹ 3,80,300 with cost of boundary wall at ₹ 48,000 totalling to ₹ 4,23,100. The AO invoked the provisions of s. 50C of the Act and made addition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
