9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer can made addition of the difference between the stamp duty value and the consideration paid. Prior to amendment by the Finance Act, 2013 there was no provision u/s.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act to make addition in respect of consideration less than the stamp duty value. The scope of section 56(2)(vii) has been enlarged after amendment w.e.f. 01/04/2014. Since, in the present case agreement was executed on 31/03/2013 i.e. during the Assessment Year 2013-14, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as applicable to the assessment year 2013-14 would apply. Registration of agreement on the subsequent date would not alter the situation. The registration of agreement is a compliance of a legal requirement under the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 and 10 to 58 of the Paper Book. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed that the aforesaid agreement was registered on 02/04/2014. On the date of registration the stamp duty value of the property was Rs.87,02,007/-. In assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2014-15 the Assessing Officer held that since the agreement was executed in the period relevant to the assessment under appeal provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act as amended by the Finance Act 2013 w.e.f. 01/04/2014 would be applicable and hence, made addition of the difference between the consideration paid by the assessee and stamp duty value i.e. 18,53,457/-. During the assessment proceedings the assessee vide letter dated 22/12/2016 requested ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the assessee had paid earnest money on 16/04/2010, therefore, the CIT(A) should have sought valuation from DVO as on 16/04/2010 and not as on 31/03/2013. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee thus submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) is liable to be deleted. 4. On the other hand, Shri R.A. Dhyani representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the agreement was registered on 02/04/2013, therefore, amended provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) would apply. The ld. Departmental Representative further contended that as per the request of assessee the CIT(A) had directed the Assessing Officer to seek va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any previous year any immovable property for a consideration which is less than stamp duty value of such property, the Assessing Officer can made addition of the difference between the stamp duty value and the consideration paid. Prior to amendment by the Finance Act, 2013 there was no provision u/s.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act to make addition in respect of consideration less than the stamp duty value. The scope of section 56(2)(vii) has been enlarged after amendment w.e.f. 01/04/2014. Since, in the present case agreement was executed on 31/03/2013 i.e. during the Assessment Year 2013-14, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as applicable to the assessment year 2013-14 would apply. Registration of agreement on the subsequent dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
