Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1080 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69B on the basis of the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- Section 69B, which is again a deeming provision, governs the cases in which investment made by the assessee is not fully disclosed. In other words, section 69B applies to the purchaser of an asset, in contradistinction to sec. 50C, which applies to the seller of an asset. A conjoint reading of sections 50C and 56(2)(vii) makes it vivid that whereas ‘stamp value’ has been substituted with the ‘full value of consideration’ in case the later is less than the former in the hands of the seller by virtue of section 50C, the substitution of the ‘stamp value’ with the ‘actual purchase price, in excess of ₹ 50,000/-’ has been made effective in the hands of the buyer only where any immovable property is purchased after 1.10.2009. As the assessee before us is a buyer, naturally, his case will not be covered u/s 50C but will be governed by section 56(2)(vii). Since section 56(2)(vii) is applicable on cases in which the individual or HUF receives immovable property on or after 1.10.2009 and we are dealing with a case in which the property has been purchased by the assessee in the financial year 2007-08, the mandate of section 56(2)(vii) cannot apply retrospectively. Once this provision is not applicable, the ratio decidendi in the case of K.P. Varghese (1981 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court ) and Shivakami Co. P. Ltd. (1986 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court ) would apply leaving no scope for making addition in the circumstances as are prevailing in the instant case. We, therefore, uphold the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|