9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 853X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dopted by the stamp valuation authority and the actual consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of the asset (other than a capital asset) does not exceed 15%, then no addition would be called for u/s 43CA is accepted, then we are afraid that the same would render the aforesaid proviso to Sec. 43CA(1) as had specifically been made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2018 w.e.f A.Y. 2019-20 would be rendered as meaningless. A s a tolerance limit of 5% between the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority and the actual consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of the asset (other than a capital asset), had been made available on the statute only vide the Finance Act, 2018 w.e.f A.Y. 01.04.2019, therefore, it would be absolutely incorrect to infer that prior to the aforesaid amendment a tolerance limit of 15% was already available and/or inbuilt in the said statutory provision. In our considered view, if that would have been so, then there would have been no requirement for incorporation of the proviso to Sec. 43CA (1) of the Act. On the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view, that the contention o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nches of ITAT throughout the country with regard to provisions of sec.50C of the Act applies with full force to sec.43CA of the Act which is the fact in the instant case. 1.iii. The Ld. CIT(A) further did not appreciate that in the decisions relied upon by the appellant, the stamp duty value on reference to DVO was scaled down and the appellate authority further reduced the value as determined by DVO based on the decision in the case of C.B Gautam (supra). 2. The CIT (A), in the circumstances, ought to have deleted the addition of ₹ 448350/- as the difference between the stamp duty value and the agreement value in percentage terms works out to 9.56% of the stamp duty value which is less than the tolerance limit of 15% as accepted by the Supreme Court in the case of C.B. Gautam (supra). 2. Briefly stated, the assessee company which is engaged in the business of real estate activities, trading and development of properties had e-filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015- 16 on 30.09.2015, declaring its total income at ₹ 66,99,670/-. Return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such under Sec. 143(1) of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration of ₹ 42,40,000/-, the deemed income under Sec. .43CA worked out at ₹ 4,48,350/- [₹ 46,88,350/- (-) ₹ 42,40,000/-]. At the same time, as the aforesaid difference worked out to 9.56% of the stamp duty value which was less than 15%, therefore, it was submitted by the assessee that the same in the backdrop of the judicial pronouncements was to be ignored and no addition was called for in its case. In sum and substance, it was the claim of the assessee that as the difference between the actual sale consideration received and the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority was less than 15%, therefore, no addition under Sec.43CA was called for in its case. Alternatively, it was submitted by the assessee, that if at all the deemed income of ₹ 4,48,350/- was to be assessed, the same could be brought to tax only in the year when the revenue was recognised in respect of the aforesaid flats as per the method of accounting regularly followed by the assessee. 4. The A.O after deliberating on the contentions advanced by the assessee was in agreement with its claim that the stamp duty value/segment value of the additional area purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 826/JP/2013). 7. Per contra, the ld. Departmental representative (for short D.R ) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 8. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as the judicial pronouncements relied upon by them. After deliberating at length on the contentions advanced by the ld. A.R, we are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the same. It is the claim of the ld. A.R, that as the difference between the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority and the actual sale consideration received by the assessee on the transfer of the aforesaid property works out to 9.56% i.e less than 15%, therefore, no addition of the impugned difference of ₹ 4,48,350/- was called for in the hands of the assessee. In support of his aforesaid contention, the ld. A.R had relied on certain judicial pronouncements to which we would hereinafter refer. Before adverting any further, it would be relevant to cull out the provisions of Sec. 43CA as were available on the statute during the year under consideration, and read as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority and the actual sale consideration received on the transfer of the asset (other than a capital asset) being land or building or both, was therein contemplated. On the contrary, a plain reading of the aforesaid statutory provision revealed, that if the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by the assessee of an asset (other than a capital asset), being land or building or both, was less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by an authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, then the value so adopted or assessed or assessable was mandatorily to be deemed as the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer, for the purposes of computing profits and gains from transfer of such asset. In fact, a perusal of the proviso made available in sub-section (1) of Sec.43CA, vide the Finance Act, 2018 , w.e.f 01.04.2019, therein reveals that the legislature had for the very first time provided for a tolerance limit of 5% difference between the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority and the actual consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count was called for in the hands of the assessee. As per the doctrine of statutory interpretation, no word howsoever meaningful it may so appear can be allowed to be read into a statutory provision unless the same had specifically been therein provided for. As observed by us hereinabove, it is only vide the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f 01.04.2019, that as per the proviso incorporated in Sec. 43CA(1) that the legislature in all its wisdom had provided for a tolerance limit of 5% as regards the difference between the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority and the actual consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of the asset (other than a capital asset). As such, it is only w.e.f 01.04.2019, if the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority for the purpose of payment of stamp duty does not exceed one hundred and five per cent of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the asset (other than a capital asset), then the consideration so received or accruing as a result of the transfer, for the purposes of computing the profits and gains from transfer of such asset, was to be deemed to be the full value o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the support drawn by the ld. A.R from the said judicial pronouncement. As regards the remaining orders of the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal that have been relied upon by the ld. A.R, we find that neither of the said orders were rendered in specific context of Sec. 43CA. Alternatively, we may herein observe, that in neither of the aforesaid orders the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal had before them the proviso to Sec.43CA(1) that has been made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f 01.04.2019. As observed by us hereinabove, as a tolerance limit of 5% between the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority and the actual consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of the asset (other than a capital asset), had been made available on the statute only vide the Finance Act, 2018 w.e.f A.Y. 01.04.2019, therefore, it would be absolutely incorrect to infer that prior to the aforesaid amendment a tolerance limit of 15% was already available and/or inbuilt in the said statutory provision. In our considered view, if that would have been so, then there would have been no requirement for incorporation of the proviso to Sec. 43CA (1) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
