9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uation arrived by the DVO is incorrect. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee has filed return of income on 19/12/2016 declaring total income of Rs. 74,40,440/-. Subsequently, on the basis of information that assessee has purchased a property with Smt. Neelu Sinha for a total consideration of Rs. 6,05,00,000/-. However, the stamp duty value of the property at Rs. 8,23,74,006/-. Thus, there was a difference of Rs. 2,18,74,006/- in the sale value. Since assessee had not shown the correct value in the return of income, therefore, case was reopened u/s. 147 and notice u/s. 148 was issued on 24/03/2021. The ld. AO in the reasons recorded based on such information held that since assessee is 50% shareholder in the property, therefore, amount of Rs. 1,09,37,003/- is taxable in the hands of the assessee as per Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings AO noted that the entire payment for the purchases of the property at Villa No. A1-02, Windmills of Your Mind, 331, Road No. 5-B, EPIP Zone / Whitefiled Bengaluru, Karnataka-560 006 in joint ownership with Smt. Neelu Sinha during F.Y. 2015-16 on his own, hence, he was of view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e date i.e., within 30 days from the date of the draft order of the ld. AO; and secondly, the assessee has stated to have signed the document on 22/04/2022. Finally, the ld. DRP held that the objection filed by the assessee is not maintainable. However, after holding so, the ld. DRP has proceeded to give directions on merits and on all the points on which assessee has raised the objection. Thus, finally, the ld. DRP has taken due consideration of the objections both legally as well as factually which were raised by the assessee. 6. Before us ld. Counsel submitted that once the ld. DRP has held that the objections filed by the assessee are not maintainable after giving detailed reasons then, there is no direction of the ld. DRP and accordingly, the final assessment order dated 31/01/2023 is barred by limitation because the ld. AO was then required to pass the order u/s. 144C(3) on or before 31/05/2022 as last date for filing of objection on 24/04/2022 and order has to be passed by the ld. AO within one month from the end of the month in which the period of filing of objections is expired u/s. 144C(4). Thus, finding given by the ld. DRP on merits are without any conclusions. 7. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is an anti-abuse provision. The legislative intend behind the insertion of provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was to tackle the menace of black money and therefore, purposive construction should be given while interpreting the said Section. Once deeming provision was brought in the statute as an anti-abuse provision, then it has to be seen whether there is no anti-abuse for evading of tax has been resorted by the assessee. In support he placed reliance on the following circulars and the judgments which in sum and substance are as under:- i. Section 56(2)(vii) which is the successor of section 56(2)(v) and 56(2)(vi) had been enacted with the specific purpose of curbing bogus capital building and money laundering transaction. It is an anti-abuse provision. Reliance was also placed on the following: i. Circular No. 5/2005 dated 15.07.2005 ii. Circular No. 5/2010 dated 03.06.2010 iii. Circular No. 1/2011 dated 06.04.2011 b. The Hon'ble Courts have taken a view that such provisions can be applied only if there is any evasion of tax and if there is a finding to this extent. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: i. 431 ITR 250(Kar) PCIT vs. Rajan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the property and if the stamp duty value of such property exceeds such consideration then it is deemed to be income chargeable to tax under the head 'income from other sources'. It is trite and well settled law that the construction of the statute must be taken from the bare words of the Act. One should not look what could have been the intention of the legislature behind the legislating section and if a legislature did intend in this way, then it has to be expressed clearly in the language of the Section. The Courts cannot invent something which is not there in the statute nor should try to gauge the intention of the Legislature. It is only where the language of the statute in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction, leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, or to some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice, presumably not intended, then a construction may be given which modifies the meaning of the words and even the structure of the sentence. In such circumstances, the Courts while interpreting the provision probable can go what was the purpose of bringing that legislation. Otherwise a literal construction has to be given an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10% as the working of 10% comes to Rs. 6,65,00,000/-. He also pointed out deficiencies in the various figures mentioned in the DVO's report in the comparable sales with that of the assessee's property as well as the comparable properties taken by the ld. DVO and pointed out various infirmities in the calculation in the DVO report itself and demonstrated that the same cannot exceed more than Rs. 6.5 Crores. Thus, the difference here is much less than 10%, then no addition should be made. 13. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that once DVO has taken the valuation based on comparable instances and has worked out the valuation at Rs. 6,65,90,250/-, then it cannot be inferred based on that 10.6% should be accepted and further tinker with the valuation so as to bring within the range of 10%. 14. On perusal of the relevant material placed on record, we find that at the very first instance, assessee had filed Valuation Report by the Registered Valuer, who after detailed examination and reasoning has valued the fair market value of the property at Rs. 6,07,68,000/- which was Rs. 2,68,000/- more than the actual sale consideration shown by the assessee. Once the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
