9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. Assessee entered in to agreement with the seller on 28.03.2013. The substantial part of the sale consideration was also paid to the seller, which is about 80% of the total sale consideration. Though, ultimately the sale deed was registered on 10.09.2013. The details of sale consideration is also mentioned in the registered sale deed, which strengthen the claim of the assessee that substantial part of consideration was paid on the day of execution of the initial agreement. The assessee claimed that the possession of the land was also obtained by them at the time of agreement. This fact is not disputed by the AO. Assessee entered in agreement with the seller, paid substantial consideration and obtained possession, the sub-clause-(i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and has shown income of from interior designing consultant for the year under consideration. The assessee filed his return of income for assessment year 2014-15 on 26.02.2015 declaring total income of ₹ 2,35,300/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer on the basis of AIR information noted that assessee along with other coowners has purchased immovable property for ₹ 1.16 Crores on 30.10.2013.The assessee was asked to submit copy of purchased deed. The assessee furnished the copy of registered purchased deed, wherein assessee s share is 1/10th i.e. 10% of the entire land. On perusal of sale deed, the Assessing Officer noted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer made the addition of difference of ₹ 10,35,918/-. 3. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] the assessee filed detailed written submission and also relied on the various case law. The submission of assessee is recorded in para-7 of the order of Ld. CIT(A). In the written submissions the assessee stated that assessee purchased land with his co-owners for consideration of ₹ 1.16 Crores, the assessee s share is 10%. During the assessment the AO asked the assessee to furnish copy of the sale deed. The assessee filed the sale deed on record. On perusal of sale deed the AO noted that SVA valued the property at ₹ 2.19 Crore. It was submitted that the assessee with other purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 28.03.2013, the assessee has paid more than 80% of the sale consideration. The substantial transfer took place on handing over possession on 28.03.3013, the substantial part of consideration was paid through cheques. The details of all the cheuques payments are duly mentioned in the agreement date 28.03.2013. The ld AR for the assessee further submits that sub-clause-(ii) was introduced to section 56(2)(vii) from AY 2014-15 so as to enable the AO to tax difference consideration, if consideration is less than stamp duty. The AO is not permitted to invoke the provisions of sub-clause (ii) as it was not on the statue on the date of agreement. To support his submissions the ld. AR for the assessee relied on the decisions of Tribunal in ACIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ritten submissions before ld CIT(A). We find that the ld CIT(A) concurred with the finding of the AO by holding that that Finance Bill, 2013 was introduced in February, 2013 and the same was amended to include cases of inadequate consideration. The amendment was widely known in February, 2013 itself. It was also held that the contention of the assessee that agreement executed prior to March 2013 will not be covered under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii), the agreement appears made in March, 2013 is not registered, the date cannot be independently verified and probably the agreement composition being anti date too. We find that neither the AO nor the ld CIT(A) investigated about the non-genuineness of the agreement. No notice to the seller was issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile considering almost similar facts held as under 6.2. -----------------. Thus where any individual or Hindu Undivided Family receives any immovable property without consideration, the stamp duty value of such property required to be considered as the consideration paid and the said amount to be taxed u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. In the instant case, as discussed earlier the assessee has paid the consideration and there was no evidence from the department to show that the assessee has paid the excess consideration over and above the sale deed. With effect from 01.04.2014, the Act has been amended and the new sub clause (ii) has been introduced to section 56(2)(vii)(b)in the statute which reads as under : (vii) where an individ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
