9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of 43CA(3) of the Act, it is very clear that stamp duty valuation on the date of booking is to be considered and the said stamp duty valuation shall have to be compared with actual sale consideration. This has been done by the ld. AO and hence, it could be safely concluded that the ld. AO had taken a plausible view in the matter by applying the provisions of the Act. We find that there is no incorrect application of law on the part of the ld. AO as alleged by the ld. PCIT. Having brought on record the time lag between the date of booking and the date of actual registration of the flats, the ld. PCIT ought not to have directed the ld. AO to take the stamp duty valuation on the date of registration of the flat which is completely in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 1,13,43,600/- as against ₹ 22,78,740/-. 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income for the A.Y.2015-16 on 31/03/2017 declaring total income of ₹ 78,19,090/-. The assessee is engaged in the business of real estate development and re-development of old buildings in Mumbai. During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown income under the head income from business or profession . During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished details of flats sold along with copies of agreement thereof before the ld. AO. On verification of the sale agreement, the ld. AO compared the stamp duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Market value on booking Date of 1st installment Full considered received Registration date Market value on registration Difference Difference in% A B C 1 201 450 14.12.11 4000000 4812825 04.12.13 05.12.14 07.05.14 7625500 812825 20.32 % ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration Stamp duty valuation Difference Payment received During F.Y. 1 201 office Moh. ImialQuereshi 07.05.2014 40,00,000 76,25,500 36,25,500 2013-14 2 202 Office FarhadSattar 07.05.2014 40,00,000 76,25,500 36,25,500 2013-14 3 11 04 Flat Ahiq Hussain 06.06.2014 50,00,000 55,23,000 5,23,000 2014-15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2011 10/05/2013 whereas the registration of those flats had effectively happened on 07/05/2014, 07/07/2014, 19/07/2014 and 26/11/2014, thereby clearly proving the time gap between the date of booking of flats and the date of registration of the flats in favour of the prospective buyers by the assessee. Hence, there arises a doubt as to what would be the relevant date for the applicability of stamp duty valuation. We find that this has been squarely addressed by the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 43CA of the Act itself which reads as under:- (3) Where the date of agreement fixing the value of consideration for transfer of the asset and the date of registration of such transfer of asset are not the same, the value referred t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reported in 203 ITR 108. Moreover, we find that the ld. AO had not committed any error in the order as he had apparently applied the provisions of Section 43CA(3) of the Act. Hence, the twin conditions that are required for invoking revision jurisdiction i.e. (i) order of the ld. AO should be erroneous and (ii) it should be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue are not cumulatively satisfied in the instant case. Hence on this count also, revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act cannot be invoked by the ld. PCIT. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee on invalid assumption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
