9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtage of stamp etc. Considering decision of DCIT vs. S. Venkat Reddy [ 2016 (10) TMI 844 - ITAT HYDERABAD] as referred in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and the decision in the case of Dharamshibhai Sonani [ 2016 (9) TMI 1259 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. - I.T.A. No. 130/Ahd/2017 - - - Dated:- 7-8-2019 - SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant by : Shri L. P. Jain, Sr. DR For the Respondent by: Shri Tushar Hemani, AR ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH - AM: The appeal filed by the Revenue for A.Y. 2012-13, arise from order of the CIT(A)-5, Ahmedabad dated 10.10.2016, in proceedings under section 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act . 2. The solitary ground of appeal of the Revenue is against the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 52,86,630/- made u/s. 50C of the Act that the proviso to sub section (1) of Sec. 50C of the Act is not with retrospective effect of it came into effect from 01.04.2017 only. 3. The fact in brief is that return of income declaring income of Rs. 33,61,033/- was filed on 10.07.2012. The case of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be taken for the purpose of computing full value of consideration for such transfer. The relevant part of the decision of the CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- Decision: 3.4. In this case the assessee has sold a bungalow for Rs.76 lakhs on 6.4.2011 the AO has noticed that the value of the aforesaid property according to the stamp duty valuation authority comes to Rs. 1,27,43,877/- whereas the assessee had shown long term capital gain of Rs.26,74,873/- taking the full value of consideration oat Rs.76 lakhs only. The AO has applied the provisions of Section 50C of the Act and deemed the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority as the full value of consideration and made addition of Rs.52,86,613/-. 3.5. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has contended that the assessee has entered into agreement of sale of immovable property of Rs.76 lakhs on 20.11.2010 and first banakhat payment was received on 20.11.2010 of Rs.5 lakhs, second payment was received on 11.12.2010 of Rs.5 lakhs, third payment was received on 17.1.2011 of Rs.1 lakh and fourth payment was received on 15.3.2011 of Rs.2 lakhs. It is further contended that the final payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to sale was made on 23.3.2011 and total sale consideration was received by the appellant by 30.3.2011. However, sale deed was executed on 6.4.2011 and the AO has adopted the value of sale consideration as adopted by the stamp valuation authority on 6.4.2011. In the case of Venkat Reddy as cited supra, the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad Bench has held that stamp duty value on date of sale agreement was required to be adopted for computing capital gains. In the Act also a proviso has been inserted to subsection (1) of Section 50C by the Finance Act, 2016 which provides that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for the transfer of the capital assets are not the same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the Stamp Valuation Authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purpose of computing full value of consideration for such transfer. Considering the above, I am of the opinion that the AO is not justified in adopting the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority on the date of sale deed. The AO is directed to adopt the value of the property as adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority on the date of agreement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purposes of computing full value of consideration for such transfer: Provided further that the first proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration, or a part thereof, has been received by way of an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or by use of electronic clearing system through a bank account, on or before the date of the agreement for transfer. Further we have perused the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Dharamshibhai Sonani where it is held that insertion of proviso to Sec. 50C by the Finance Act, 2016 with effect from 01.04.2017 has retrospective effect. The relevant part of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench is reproduced as under:- 9. So far as the amendment to Section 50C being retrospective in effect is concerned, there is no doubt about the legal position. I hold the provisos to Section 50C being effective from 1st April 2003. This is precisely what the learned counsel has prayed for. In his detailed written submissions, he has made out of a strong case for the amendment to Section 50C be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
