9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee has actually expended a sum on purchase of the property, the authorities would have been within power to treat the difference as income of assessee but this is not so in present case. The authorities do not have any evidence whatsoever by which it can be said that the assessee has expended a sum on purchase of the impugned property. From the decision of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited [ 2022 (7) TMI 1350 - SUPREME COURT] that the value determined by stamps authority is merely for collection of stamps duty. Also find merit in the submission of Ld. AR that the realising the absence of provision, the Parliament has introduced newer section 56(2)(x) but that section does not support revenue s case for AY 2013-14. With this di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to Rs. 49,89,500/-. The assessee was required to submit documentary evidence regarding the said claim as per order sheet entry dated 08.03.2016. The submissions made by the assessee in this regard dated 11.03.2016 have been placed on record and the same have been duly considered. As per the said submissions, the assessee states: Copy of the registry of agriculture land are enclosed 5.2 On going through the said document it is found that the stamp duty valuation of the said property is stated as Rs. 68,72,000/-. Hence the assessee has not declared the expenditure amounting to Rs. 18,82,500/- on the said property. The source of the same remains unexplained as the correct value has not been accounted for in the books of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of the case, assessment order u/s 143(3) and reply filed by the appellant during the appellant proceedings. From the perusal of the assessment order it is seen that Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.18,82,500/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69 of the IT Act. It is noted that appellant has shown purchase of agriculture land amounting to Rs. 49,89,500/- in his P L account. On examination of reply and documents filed by the appellant during assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has noticed the stamp duty valuation of the purchase property is Rs. 68,72,000/-. The Assessing Officer relying on the decision of Hon ble ITAT Delhi Bench (SMC-4) in the case of Arti Export Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (2005) 146 Taxmann 89 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . AR submitted that the lower authorities have invoked section 69C to make / sustain this addition but the section 69C does not contain any provision for treating the difference of actual purchase price and stamps authority valuation as income. Ld. AR submitted that a bare reading of section 69C makes it clear that the said section is applicable only if the assessee has incurred any expenditure but offers no explanation about the source. Ld. AR submitted that in the present case, the assessee has incurred expenditure of Rs. 49,89,500/- only and the same is disclosed in the books of account, hence source is clearly explained. Ld. AR submitted that the sum of Rs. 68,70,000/- considered by the authorities, is just a value determined by sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of collection of stamp duty and as observed hereinabove, which are the uniform rates for all the lands in the area, cannot be the basis for determination of the compensation for the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the High Court has committed a serious error in enhancing the amount of compensation by 800% from Rs. 21/- per sq. ft. to Rs. 174/- per sq. ft. relying upon and/or considering the rates mentioned in the Ready Reckoner. 6. Ld. AR submitted that the Parliament too realised that section 69C cannot tax the difference of actual purchase price and stamps valuation authority and that is why, introduced a newer provision by way of section 56(2)(x) from 01.04.2017 for bringing such differences into tax- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has expended a sum of Rs. 68,70,000/- on purchase of the impugned property. We observe from the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra) that the value determined by stamps authority is merely for collection of stamps duty. We also find merit in the submission of Ld. AR that the realising the absence of provision, the Parliament has introduced newer section 56(2)(x) but that section does not support revenue s case for AY 2013-14. With this discussion, we do not hesitate in concluding that the revenue authorities are not justified in making addition of Rs. 18,82,500/- u/s 69C in this case. We are therefore inclined to delete the addition. According, the ground raised by assessee is allowed. 10. In the resu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
