9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Considering the explanation of the assessee, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.03.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 45,46,760/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The assessee had purchased a land during the year vide sale deed dated 10.03.2015 for a consideration of Rs. 10,28,28,600/-. In the course of assessment, the AO found that at the time of registration of the property the assessee had paid additional stamp duty. It transpired that the matter was referred to the Deputy Collector for valuation of the property, who had valued the property at Rs. 12,79,67,530/- and accordingly the assessee had paid additional stamp duty as per the revised valuation. The AO, thus, noted that the stamp duty value of the property was Rs. 12,79,67,530/-, whereas the consideration paid as per sale deed was Rs. 10,28,24,000/- only. The AO, therefore, added the difference amount of Rs. 2,51,39,530/- as income of the assessee under the provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 4. Aggrieved with the order of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al plot area of 7790 sq.mtr. as the balance area was acquired by the Government authority for general public utility. The DVO had not considered the objection of the assessee that the jantri rate should be applied only to the actual area of 4674 sq.mtr. acquired by the assessee and not to the total plot area of 7790 sq.mtr. According to the Ld. AR, the valuation should be considered only for the actual area which was acquired by the assessee pursuant to the sale deed. He further submitted that the comparable cases as considered by the DVO were actually not comparable taking into account their area and location. He further submitted that the difference in valuation between price as per sale deed and the valuation as made by the DVO was only 12.5%, which should have been ignored. 8. Per contra, Shri Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the DVO had considered all the objections as raised by the assessee and thereafter, determined the value of the property. At the time of inspection by the DVO, the representatives of the assessee were also present and, their objection as well as feedback was taken into account by the DVO. The Ld. DR further submitted that the differen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the final plot area was 4647 sq. mtr. only. On the other hand, the consideration mentioned in the sale deed was Rs. 10,28,28,000/-. Therefore, the AO had added the difference of Rs. 2,51,39,530/- u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. The proviso to the said Section stipulates that if the assessee contends that the stamp duty value of the property was higher than the FMV of the property or disputes the stamp duty value, then the AO may refer the matter to the Valuation Officer to determine the FMV the property. In the present case also, the assessee had disputed the stamp duty value of Rs. 12,79,67,530/- and on the objection of the assessee the matter was referred to the DVO. The Ld. CIT(A) has already allowed relief to the assessee on the basis of the report of the DVO. 11. The contention of the assessee is that the DVO had not correctly considered the objections as raised by the assessee. It is found that all the objections of the assessee were properly dealt by the Ld. CIT(A) in his order. The relevant portion of his order is reproduced below: "6.3 I have considered the submission by the appellant. The issue here is that what is the valuation of the land property purchased by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is extraneous to the matter. It is between him and the sellers and that what the amount of consideration they want to record in documents. The Act clearly creates a deeming provision, as an anti-abuse measure, to thwart black money transactions in such transfer of immovable property, by ensuring that the valuation of the property that is sold is as per the fair market value which is determined in terms of the valuation fixed by State Government for stamp duty purposes and if that valuation is objected to, then the valuation as arrived at by the DVO. Here stamp duty valuation of the property is found to be Rs. 12,79,67,530/-; The appellant objected to this amount. The DVO ascertained it to be Rs 11,56,82,000/-. This exceeded the price at which the property was shown to have been purchased as recorded in the registered deed. The provision of law as per section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) kicks in and was rightly applied by the AO subject to revision as valued by DVO. 6.3.2 The appellant also submitted that the difference in DVO valuation and Registered deed price is 12.5%. It claimed that as per section 50C of the Act, if the difference in valuation is less than 15%, then the same has to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee had not submitted any other Registered Valuer's report before the DVO. The comparable cases considered by the DVO were also not objected by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has also dealt with the objection of the assessee in respect of difference in valuation being less than 15% of the sale price. The FMV determined by the DVO was adopted only on the basis of objection of the assessee to the stamp duty value, with a request to refer the matter to the DVO. The Ld. CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that the value as per report of DVO was taken as per alternate plea of the assessee only. Under the circumstances, we don't find any merit in the ground as raised by the assessee. The assessee has been unable to bring any material on record to controvert the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act is found to be squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 1,28,54,000/- as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, is upheld. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
