TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 50(c) of the Act are not applicable to the instant case, as this case pertains to A.Y. 2015-16, however such provisions are corollary to the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act as applicable to the instant case, hence this Court considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, the Assessee's prayer for taking a lenient/liberal view, the substantial justice and in order to cut short the litigation, is inclined to delete the addition of Rs. 5,14,461/- being difference between stamp duty value of Rs. 1,35,96,759/- minus purchase value of Rs. 1,30,82,298/- of unit no 307, being covered under exception carved out in the provisions of section 56(2) (x) (b)(B)(ii) of the Act. Thus the addition of Rs. 5,14,461/- (pertaining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 923/- in both the properties in the purchase value declared and stamp duty value. For brevity, the calculation is reproduced herein below: Particulars Property-1 (Unit No. 306) Property-2 (Unit No. 307) Total Stamp duty value of 2010 90,44,500/- 1,45,90,500/- Purchased value 76,66,779/- 1,30,82,298/- Difference 13,77,721/- 15,08,202/- 28,85,923/- 3. The Assessee, in reply to the aforesaid calculation, has submitted as under: 4.0 It is submitted that the stamp duty valuations received from the registrar for the year 2010 seems to be on estimated basis. Also for the 2nd property i.e. Unit no. 307, it is evident that the Registrar has applied the same rate both for office area and the parking area, where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In view of the above explanation, the submission made by the assessee is not acceptable. Hence, the difference of Rs. 28,85,923 / (Rs. 13,77,721/- for unit no.306 and Rs. 15,08,202/-for unit no. 307) is added to the total income under the head "Income from other sources". Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing income." 5. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner and submitted various details including the amounts paid for the aforesaid properties. The Assessee also argued that the stamp duty value received from the registrar by the AO seems to be on an estimated basis as the registrar had applied the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 2010 89,33,463/- 1,35,96,759/- 2,25,30,222/- Purchase value 76,77,779/- 1,30,83,298/- 2,07,49,077/- Difference 12,66,684/- 5,14,461/- 17,81,145/- From the above discussions, it is held that the appellant had paid consideration less than the stamp duty value by an amount of Rs. 17,81,145/-. Accordingly, the AO is directed to restrict the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act to Rs. 17,81,145/-. Hence, the ground of appeal no. 2 is Partly Allowed." 6. The Assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us and contradicted the findings of the Ld. Commissioner. 7. On the contrary the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee and supported the impugned order. 8. Heard the parties and perused the material available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as this case pertains to A.Y. 2015-16, however such provisions are corollary to the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act as applicable to the instant case, hence this Court considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, the Assessee's prayer for taking a lenient/liberal view, the substantial justice and in order to cut short the litigation, is inclined to delete the addition of Rs. 5,14,461/- being difference between stamp duty value of Rs. 1,35,96,759/- minus purchase value of Rs. 1,30,82,298/- of unit no 307, being covered under exception carved out in the provisions of section 56(2) (x) (b)(B)(ii) of the Act. Thus the addition of Rs. 5,14,461/- (pertaining to unit no 307) is deleted. Resultantly, addition of Rs. 17, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|