9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fixed/reduced the market value to Rs. 4,34,94,500/- as against the aforesaid market value of Rs. 5,43,68,100/-, therefore, as per the aforesaid mandate of law, the assessee was precluded from seeking any reference by the A.O for valuation of the property by the valuation cell. We consider that as no infirmity emerges from the declining of the assessee s request for making a reference by the A.O. for the valuation of the property by the valuation cell u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) r.w.s. 50C(2) of the Act; therefore, the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) is upheld. Decided against assessee. - Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 26.05.2023, which arises from the order passed by the AO under Sec. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) dated 08.12.2017 for assessment year 2015-16. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: 1. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essed as his Income from other sources u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. 5. Based on his aforesaid deliberations, the A.O worked out the aforementioned difference at Rs. 1,63,94,500/- and determined the 1/20th share of the assessee at Rs. 8,19,725/- [1/20th share of Rs. 1,63,94,500/-]. At the same time, it was observed by the A.O that the aforementioned 20 co-purchasers, had executed and registered an agreement to sell with the sellers for the immovable property under consideration in the immediately preceding accounting year, i.e. on 10.04.2013 and in lieu thereof it had made part payment in cash amounting to Rs. 80 lacs [@ Rs. 4 lacs per co-purchaser], as an advance towards the agreed purchase consideration. Considering the fact that as per the mandate of law, if the date of agreement fixing the consideration for the transfer is different from the date of registration of the transfer, the stamp duty value as on the date of agreement for transfer would be considered for Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, it was observed by the A.O that the matter regarding the value that was adopted by the stamp valuation authority for payment of stamp duty purpose of Rs. 5,43,68,100/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 43494500/- that too in the Registree fees voucher, not in the front page of the registree, but it doesn't conclude that the market value of the property Rs. 43494500/- vas acceptable to them. Agreement between the Sellers and Buyers was also a factor there, due to which sale of the property was to get registered hi the front page of the Sale Deed also, the market value of the property mentioned is Rs. 2.71,00,000/- and actual sale consideration mentioned is Rs. 2,71,00,000A Hence, the assessee in dial impression and belief thought no further action or steps is to he taken. Hence. the assessee doesn't agree with the stamp duty value adopted by the local authority which is ultimately stamp duty authority of the government and its main intention will always he to get more revenue in favour of the government, and therefore, the assessee request for. the valuation of fair market value of the property by the appropriate authority of the Income Tax Department. Pius, charging the amount of Stamp Duty value exceeding Sale consideration under the head Income from other sources as per the provisions of sec. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 would not be justifiable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal Rules, 1963 after hearing respondent/ revenue and perusing the orders of the lower authorities. 11. Controversy involved in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass, i.e. as to whether or not the assessee who had purchased property for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property, having disputed the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority for the purpose of payment of stamp duty, then would he be well within his right to seek a reference by the A.O to the Valuation Cell for determining the fair market value (FMV) of the said property on the ground that the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer? 12. In my considered view, though the assessee, as per the 3rd proviso to Section 56(2)(vii) r.w. Section 50C(2) of the Act is vested with the statutory right to seek a reference by the A.O for determining the FMV of the property by a Valuation Officer in case it is claimed by him that the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority exceeds the FMV of the property as on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of section 16A of that Act. Explanation 1. For the purposes of this section, Valuation Officer shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). Explanation 2. For the purposes of this section, the expression assessable means the price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority referred to in sub-section (1), the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by such authority shall be taken as the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer. 13. As in the present case, the assessee had disputed the stamp value of the property in question that was adopted by the stamp valuation authority, i.e. Collector of Stamp, Bastar (C.G.) at Rs. 5,43,68,144/-, and he had refixed/reduced the market va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
