9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the same date i.e., on 01/06/2012. Substantial part of payment has also been made during the financial year 20121-13 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14, while the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) was not in existence during this period of transaction and the date of taking over the possession. In fact, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) have been inserted in the statute w.e.f. 01/04/2014 i.e., during the assessment year 2014-15 and not before that while the assessee has already executed agreement during the assessment year 2013-14 itself and hence the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) are not applicable to the said transaction per se. Thus, consequent upon such amendment inserted in the statute, the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the stay against the demand and recovery action to be taken by the jurisdictional assessing officer as the appellant has preferred an appeal before this Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and is confident of getting justice." 3. At the outset, I need to mention here that the assessee has filed an application for grant of stay against the demand raised by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2014-15 for ₹ 2,98,040. The said stay application is hereby rejected, as I am proceeding to dispose off the corresponding appeal filed by the assessee on merits. 4. Facts in Brief:- The assessee is an Individual and is engaged in the business of civil contractor involved in the construction of civil structures and building. During ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsequent upon issuance of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee being aggrieved filed appeal before the first appellate authority agitating the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as under:- "4. Decision: 4.1 The present appeal is against the AO's Order u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 29.12.2016 for the AY2014-15. The assessee is a civil contractor involved in construction of civil structures and building, filed his return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 30.03.2015 admitting total income of Rs 10,76,980/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. 4.2 During the assessment proceedings, AO has observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d transaction was squarely not covered under erstwhile Sec. 56(2)(Vii)(b). 4.4 The averments of the appellant and facts of the case have been duly considered. It is evident from submission that the appellant has made agreement vide dated 01.06.2012, and the land was registered vide sale deed on 27-06-2013. The part payments for the property were made from 26.02.2013 onwards. The question to be decided in the instant case is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) are applicable or not. The Provision of Sec. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) has been inserted in the Income tax Act w.e.f 1.4.2014 and before that Sec. 56(2)(vii)(b) was read as any immovable property, without consideration, the stamp duty va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2)(vii)(b) is not applicable and the benefit for considering the stamp value duty as on the date of agreement is also not applicable. So, it is clear from the provisions of the Act that the appellant entered into transaction by registering the sale deed on 27.06.2013 where there was an existence of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act and AO is right in invoking the provision for inadequate consideration, which is in existence at the time of transaction. 4.5 In the light of the above facts and findings, it is held that the provisions of Sec. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) are squarely applicable to this transaction of the appellant and the addition is sustained." The assessee being still aggrieved is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough the orders of the authorities below. The addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act is concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that assessee had purchased immovable property and there was a difference of value as disclosed by the assessee and adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority. The Assessing Officer, by invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, made addition of ₹ 9,76,000, which is the difference of purchase consideration of ₹ 60,00,000 and stamp duty valuation of ₹ 69,76,000. I find that the Revenue's action in invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that the agreement executed on 01/06/2012, between the pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
