9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view is followed by the ITAT decisions. There is no dispute that agreement was entered much prior to the date of registration and the part payment has also duly been done at the time of agreement. Hence, the view of the authorities below that circle rate on the date of registration should be applicable is not correct. We hold that in accordance with the ratio of aforesaid case laws, the rate as on the date of agreement should be taken for the purpose of computation. As regards other two aspects of the cost of improvement, no cogent submissions have been made before us. Hence we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A) where he has upheld the addition on account of cost of improvement. Appeal of the assessee is partly al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in holding that assessee has not Incurred Rs.75,000/- on account of cost of improvement. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a partner in Vikas Industries from where assessee has received profit and interest on capital. Assessee is also receiving salary income as Director in Vikas Pencil Manufacturing Ltd.. During the proceedings of the case, direction u/s 144A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') has been received from JCIT, Range 60, New Delhi to enquire into the issues i.e. that assessee had sold a property during the year at Rs.76,50,000/- and the index cost of improvement claimed was Rs.33 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of entering into 'agreement to sale, the circle rate was Rs. 31,510/- per sq.mtr. However, the property was transferred vide registered sale deed on 31.12.2014. The Assessing Officer held that the appellant had sold the property at a rate below stamp duty valuation on 3.1.12.2014 (Rs. 46,200 per sq.mt. vis a vis Rs. 31,510/- per sq.mtr.). According to the Assessing Officer, the property was sold for Rs. 1,53,00,000/-, on 31.12.2014, when the stamp duty valuation was Rs. 3,39,96,240/-. According to the Assessing Officer, the sale consideration of the property was to be taken at Rs. 3,39,96,240/- (instead of Rs. 1,53,00,000/-). Thus, the AO held that addition as per provisions of section 50C was called for. 5. Ld. CIT (A) note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18 (please refer para 29.3 of circular No. 3 of 2017, dated 20.01.2017, F.No. 370142/20j2016- TPL). As such, in view of express intention of legislature as explained above, the appellant cannot be allowed retrospective benefit of amendment in law. 8. Further, the Assessing Officer has doubted the cost of improvement of Rs.75,000/-, indexed value of which was Rs.1,21,519/-. No proof has been presented even in appeal. As such, Assessing Officer's action with regard to this amount of Rs. 75,000/- is confirmed. 6. Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. 7. Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that section 50C(1) along with First Proviso thereof r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see has duly entered into agreement much prior to the date of registration and a part of the consideration has also been paid by account payee cheque or account payee draft as per the requirement. He submitted that there was no requirement to pay full amount at the time of agreement. He further submitted that the Revenue s plea that this Proviso should apply prospective as it was introduced by Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 does not hold good in view of the decisions of the Tribunal and the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court. In this regard, ld. Counsel of the assessee placed reliance upon the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT, Chennai vs. Shri Vummudi Amarendran in T.C..A. No.329 of 2020 dated 28th September ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
