9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 904X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion for the purpose of calculating the capital gain. To this extent, we disagree with the orders of the authorities below. At the time of hearing a question was put to the AR to provide the stamp duty value as applicable at the time of agreement - he failed to bring anything on record but contended that the stamp duty value at the time of agreement was more than the amount of sale consideration shown therein. However, we disagree with the contention of the assessee in the absence of any documentary evidence. No addition made in the hands of the co-owner namely Shri Dharatbhai Prahald Bhai Patel on account of the difference in the amount of sale consideration viz a vis stamp duty valuation. For this purpose, the learned AR drew our att ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for ₹ 24,58,548/- under the provision of section 50C of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and declared his income from the partnership firm, capital gain and other sources. The assessee, along with co-owners, vide agreement dated 29/12/2010 has sold property at ₹ 38,00,000/- only. The share of the assessee in the impugned property stands at 18% only. Accordingly, the assessee has declared sale consideration at ₹ 6,84,000/- only being 18% of ₹ 38,00,000.00 only. 3.1 However, the AO found that the property in dispute for the purpose of Stamp Duty was valued at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for the purpose of section 50C of the Act in the year under consideration. 6.3 It was also contended by the ld. AR that the Revenue in the case of other co-owner namely Shri Dharatbhai Prahald Bhai Patel in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act has accepted the stamp duty value declared by him i.e. ₹ 38,00,000.00 only. 6.4 In view of the above the ld. AR submitted that the revised value for the stamp duty cannot be adopted in the year under consideration. 7. On the other hand Ld. DR, vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In the case on hand the assessee along with other co-owners h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transfer of capital asset, then the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority shall be deemed to be the full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. 8.2 Likewise, the proviso to section 50C of the Act stipulates that stamp duty value as on the date of agreement may be considered as sale consideration instead of stamp duty value on the date of 'transfer' of the property. Sale consideration is determined between the parties at the time of entering into the sale agreement, and fair market value of the property as on the date of agreement is thus more relevant for the purpose of application of deeming provision of section50C of the Act. There may be considerable time gap in the date of agreement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R to provide the stamp duty value as applicable at the time of agreement. However, he failed to bring anything on record but contended that the stamp duty value at the time of agreement was more than the amount of sale consideration shown therein. However, we disagree with the contention of the assessee learned AR of the assessee in the absence of any documentary evidence. 8.5 Before parting, we also find that that there was no addition made in the hands of the co-owner namely Shri Dharatbhai Prahald Bhai Patel on account of the difference in the amount of sale consideration viz a vis stamp duty valuation. For this purpose, the learned AR drew our attention on the assessment order framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
