Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 175 - AT - Income TaxCapital gain - value determined by the DVO - entitled for the benefit of proviso to section 50C(1) - Addition on account of difference between the sales consideration and the valuation done by the DVO - HELD THAT:- Assessee furnished a chart showing the details of difference in % of value declared by the assessee and value accepted. With regard to properties shown at Sl.No.1 and 2 there is no difference of 5.7% between the value declared by assessee and the value determined by the DVO. Therefore, we find convincing force in the submission of ld.AR of the assessee that the assessee is eligible of benefit of amendment made in section 50C(1) by inserting 3rd Proviso for enhancing tolerance bend for variation between declared value vis-à-vis stamp valuation from 5% to 10% was held to be retrospective from the date when section 50C was inserted w.e.f 01.04.2003. See Maria Fernandes Cheryl [2021 (1) TMI 620 - ITAT MUMBAI]. Similar view was reiterated by Delhi Tribunal in Amrapali Cinema [2021 (4) TMI 1160 - ITAT DELHI] therefore, respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Benches as referred above and considering the fact that the difference between the declared value and the value determined by the DVO is only 5.77%. Thus, we direct the AO to delete the addition qua property mentioned at Sl.No.1 and 2. So far as the Property mentioned Sl.No.3 and 4 are concerned, we find that there is a difference of 14.77% and 14.58% between the value declared by assessee and the fair market value determined by DVO which is beyond the maximum tolerance band of 10% as per the proviso to section 50C(1) of the Act. Therefore, the benefit of said proviso cannot be extended to the assessee - we find that these case laws are not applicable on the facts of the present case as all those case laws relates to addition in different chapter of Income Tax Act and facts of all those cases are altogether different and the ratio of all those cases are not applicable on the facts of the present case - assessee is not entitled for the benefit of proviso to section 50C(1) qua property shown at S No 3 & 4 and accordingly, the addition with regard to property mentioned at Sl.No.3 and 4 are upheld. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed
|