9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 930X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so mutually agreed by them. But that mutual agreement would not authorise the AO to deem it full sale consideration. The full sale consideration is to be deemed at the value which is assessable by the stamp duty valuation authorities, and if the rates notified by the stamp duty valuation authority are taken into consideration, then such value would come far less than the value disclosed by all the appellants, while computing the capital gain. The area sold by the appellant was 24,888 sq.yards. If it is multiplied by ₹ 250/- then it comes out to roughly ₹ 62.22 lakhs. If it is multiplied by ₹ 300/-, then it comes to ₹ 74,66,400/-. The sale consideration disclosed jointly by all the appellants is ₹ 1,10,00,000/-, which is far more than the value ought to be adopted for the purpose of stamp duty. Therefore, we are of the view that no addition deserves to be made in the hands of the appellants on account of long term capital gain. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.2057 to 2060/Ahd/2017 - - - Dated:- 18-11-2019 - Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Tush ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,78,571/-. They have disclosed the sale consideration at ₹ 27.50 lakhs only, and therefore, the difference of ₹ 1,34,28,571/- was to be assessed in each hand of the appellants. In response to the show cause, the assessees have filed detailed submissions contending therein that they entered into an agreement on 1.2.2010. It was registered with subregistrar s office. They have received advances through banking channel. The assessee, Smt.Mahinabanu Nainabanu Sipai received ₹ 9.00 lakhs, vide cheque no.005422 on 4.3.2010 and ₹ 3.00 lakhs vide cheque no.017103 on 5.3.2010. Thus, according to the appellant, there is no dispute with regard to the genuineness of the agreement entered into by the assessee on 1.2.2010, which was registered with sub-Registrar on 4.3.2010. The transaction ought to be construed as complete on 4.3.2010. At the most, the stamp duty valuation applicable on that date, ought to be adopted for the purpose of computing capital gain. It was also contended that vendees were in hurry, and therefore, they have agreed for payment of stamp duty at ₹ 6,47,14,285/-. Since stamp duty was required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .f. 1.4.2011. Copy of the notification issued by the Revenue Department of the State of Gujarat is available on page no.82 to 87. He took us through page no.82, and submitted that residential land has been valued at ₹ 250/- per square yard. Assesees sold land admeasuring 24,888 sq.meters and if that rate is being applied, then it is less than ₹ 1,10,00,000/- and the AO should have not made any addition. 7. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon the orders of the Revenue authorities. He submitted that a perusal of section 50C would indicate that full sale consideration would be deemed equivalent to the amount of the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the authorities of the State Government for the purpose of stamp duty valuation. In the present case, the value adopted was ₹ 6,47,14,285/-, and this value deserves to be deemed as full consideration for the purpose of computing capital gain. 8. We have duly considered rival submissions and gone through the record carefully. Sections 48 and 50C have direct bearing on the controversy in hand, therefore, we deem it appropriate to take note of the relevant part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assets and cost of any improvement thereto. A perusal of the section 50C would show that where consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being the land or building, or both is less than the value adopted or assessed by any authority for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or assessed or assessable shall for the purpose of section 48 be deemed to be full value of the consideration. In other words, full consideration employed in section 48 is to be replaced by the consideration on which value of the property so adopted, assessed or assessable for the purpose of payment of stamp duty. Both the authorities are not disputing with regard to the above position of law. The first fold of dispute is, which date is to be construed as the date of transfer. According to the assessee, the date of agreement i.e. 1.2.2010 is to be construed as the date of transfer, because on that date, the agreement to sell was executed, and this agreement was registered with Sub-registrar. The part consideration was also paid. As far as genuineness of this agreement is concern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case, that date is 8.4.2011. On this date, the rates for valuation of the land for the purpose of payment of stamp duty got revised. Thus, these rates have been revised on 18.4.2011 applicable w.e.f. 1.4.2011. Thus, the valuation of the nonagriculture land is to be determined on the basis of the rate applicable as on 1.4.2011. On this date, the stamp duty valuation authorities have determined the rate at ₹ 250/- per sq.meter. For the land falling within the periphery of village i.e. within Abadi Deh ( आबादी देह ) of residential boundary of the village has been fixed at ₹ 300/-. Agriculture land converted into non-agriculture land has been fixed at ₹ 250/- per sq.meter. Therefore, the capital asset (non-agriculture land) sold by the appellants was required to be valued at the rate of ₹ 250/- per sq.metr. The value declared by the assessee at ₹ 1.10 crores is far more than the value required to be adopted on the basis of the rates notified by the stamp duty valuation authority, and therefore, no addition ought to have been made. There is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
