Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 597 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) - purchase of immovable property - difference amount between the consideration paid by the assessee and the Sub Registrar Office (SRO in short) value - Section 50C applicability - HELD THAT:- The property was in dispute due to bank loan and the original title deeds were not available for complying with the sale formalities. Therefore, there was a delay in obtaining the title deeds for completing the registration. Thus, we find that there is genuine cause for delay in getting the property registered. CIT(A) relied on the decision of M.Siva Parvathi and Ors [2009 (10) TMI 618 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] which is rendered in the context of application of section 50C of the Act. In the decision cited, this Tribunal has considered the decision of K.P.Varghese [1981 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT]and held that the provisions of section 50C which were not available in the statute cannot be applied during the interim period. Where any individual or Hindu Undivided Family receives any immovable property without consideration, the stamp duty value of such property required to be considered as the consideration paid and the said amount to be taxed u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. In the instant case, as discussed earlier the assessee has paid the consideration and there was no evidence from the department to show that the assessee has paid the excess consideration over and above the sale deed. With effect from 01.04.2014, the Act has been amended and the new sub clause(ii) has been introduced to section 56(2)(vii)(b)in the statute. As per the provisions the Act from the A.Y.2014-15 sub clause (ii) has been introduced so as to enable the AO to tax the difference consideration if the consideration paid is less than the stamp duty value. The AO is not permitted to invoke the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) in the absence of sub clause (ii) in the Act as on the date of agreement. The department has not brought any evidence to show that there was extra consideration paid by the assessee over and above the sale agreement or sale deed. No other case law of any high court supporting the contention of the department was brought to our notice by the Ld.DR. Therefore, we hold that the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly applied the decision of this Tribunal in the assessee’s case and deleted the addition. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld.- Decided in favour of assesssee.
|