9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration vis a vis stamp duty valuation from 5% to 10% are effective from date on which section 50C itself was introduced i.e. from 01/04/2003 and therefore, having retrospective applicability thereon. The language of provisions of Section 50C are exactly pari materia with provisions of Section 43CA of the Act. Hence, though the aforesaid decision was rendered in the context of Section 50C of the Act, the same analogy would apply for provisions of Section 43CA of the Act also as similar proviso is available in Section 43CA of the Act also. Hence, respectively following the aforesaid decision of this Tribunal, we hold that the difference added by the ld. AO in the assessment falls below the tolerance band of 10% and hence, by applying the proviso to Section 43CA of the Act, no addition is required to be made in the instant case u/s.43CA - Accordingly, the ld. AO is hereby directed to delete the addition of Rs.4,42,460/- made by him in the assessment. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. Revision u/s 263 by CIT - incorrect application of provisions of Section 43CA - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the ld. AO had duly applied the provisions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirming the addition made u/s.43CA of the Act in the sum of Rs.4,42,460/- in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3.1. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is a builder / developer and running a proprietary concern M/s. Mavji Estate Developers. The assessee sold a property bearing flat No.405, Meera Empire, Subhash Nagar, Teen Dongri, Goregaon (W), Mumbai on 22/02/2014 for Rs.62,55,000/- to Mr. Babasaheb Rajaram Waghambare and others. The assessee had actually entered into an agreement with the said party on 08/02/2011 itself pursuant to which the assessee had received the first payment of Rs.2,50,000/- by account payee cheque. Hence, the assessee pleaded that the allotment of this flat No.405 was indeed made to the buyer on 08/02/2011 itself, at which point in time, the provisions of Section 43CA of the Act were not at all in the statute. This was the reply given by the assessee in response to show-cause notice issued by the ld. AO for applying the stamp duty value on the date of agreement in 2011 in terms of Section 43CA of the Act. The ld. AO however, disregarded the contentions of the assessee and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stration of the said association - Rs.10,000/- iv) Towards due performance of this agreement, v) Water meter and electric meter deposits and Miscellaneous expenses for obtaining such Connections - Rs.25,000/- vi) Towards proportionate share of development Charges and other charges of service charges - Rs.78,925/- vii) Towards corpus fund for up-keep and maintenance And facilities - Rs.1,03,320/- viii) Towards club house charges - Rs.1,50,000/- Total Rs.3,93,246/- 3.3. It was pleaded by the ld. AR that this is an additional sum of Rs.3,93,246/- received from the buyer of the flat and hence the same also is required to be treated as consideration as ultimately it is left to the discretion of the builder i.e. assessee herein to bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 10% and hence, by applying the proviso to Section 43CA of the Act, no addition is required to be made in the instant case u/s.43CA of the Act. Accordingly, the ld. AO is hereby directed to delete the addition of Rs.4,42,460/- made by him in the assessment. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 4. Let us take up the appeal of the assessee for A.Y.2014-15 in ITA No.2603/Mum/2019. 5. We find that the ld. PCIT had invoked revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act against the order passed by the ld. AO u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 30/12/2016.The assessment order framed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 30/12/2016 was subject matter of challenge before us in ITA No.1244/Mum/2019 which has been adjudicated hereinabove. In the said assessment order, the ld. PCIT had applied the provisions of Section 43CA of the Act by adopting the stamp duty value prevailing on the date of initial allotment i.e. in February 2011 and thereby making an addition of Rs.4,42,460/- in the assessment in respect of Flat No. 405. This order was sought to be treated by the ld. PCIT as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the ground that since the sale deed was registere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time of booking. In the said working given by the assessee, the ready reckoner rate /circle rate at the time of booking was lesser than the reported sale consideration in respect of flat Nos.1004,102,202 and 501. The details of these workings are enclosed in page 16 of the paper book filed. Hence, the ld. AO did not resort to make any addition u/s.43CA of the Act in respect of these four flats. Whereas in respect of flat No.405, the ready reckoner rate at the time of initial booking was higher than the reported sale consideration. Hence, an addition of Rs.4,42,460/- was made by the ld. AO in respect of Flat No. 405 alone in the assessment. Hence, it could not be said that the ld. AO had not made any enquiry in this regard. In the instant case, the ld. AO had duly applied the provisions of the Act more particularly the provisions of Section 43CA(3) and 43CA(4) of the Act. We find that the ld. PCIT in the instant case is proceeding on incorrect application of provisions of Section 43CA of the Act by directing the ld. AO to adopt the ready reckoner rates on the date of sale ignoring the fact that the ready reckoner rate is to be considered on the date of initial booking / allot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
