Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 178 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) - Assessee argument that they had not actually “received” any exclusive right or title or domain over the land in question - statutory compensation of the land as cquired by the National Highways Authority of India “NHAI” - HELD THAT:- Learned counsel could not dispute in light of the clinching provisions that once the three taxpayers before us had received the statutory compensation of the land strictly to the extent of their respective share acquired by the National Highways Authority of India “NHAI” as per the above statute, they can very well be presumed to have also “received” the corresponding right or title in the land itself so as to attract sec.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Mr. Joshi could not throw any light as to how these assessees could receive compensation qua their exact share of 12% and 11% (supra) despite the alleged revenue entries having gone against them. Nor has he placed on record the assessee’s corresponding compensation applications / petitions filed by all these assessees before the land acquisition authorities. This act only gives rise to our adverse inference against them. We thus are of the view that the mere fact that some stray revenue entries have gone against the assessees or no sale deed had been executed in their favour would not amount to them having not actually “received” the land in issue once they have received the corresponding exact compensation of their respective shares under the land acquisition law. Faced with the situation, we find merit in the Revenue’s contentions that the Assessing Officer had rightly invoked sec.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act in the given facts and circumstances before us. The CIT(A)’s findings treating the agreement dt 12.08.1997 in absence of any corroborative evidence stand reversed. Applicability of first and second proviso to sec.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act that in case the dates of sale deed and date of agreement are not the same, stamp value as on the date of latter’s day may be adopted under this sub-clause provided that whole or part thereof had been paid by any mode other than cash on or before the date of agreement - We find part merit in learned counsel’s arguments at the same time that these assessees’ has indeed made payment of the alleged additional compensation as well as sale price on 04.10.2014 which has not been found to have been factually disputed even on 09.09.2015 (Bharna Pavati) as well as 06.02.2016 [registration of the alleged agreement dated 12.08.1997], respectively. This is also not the Revenue’s case that these assessees’ or their co-vendees had not made the said payments as on 04.10.2014 by way of compensation of Rs.42 lakhs by prescribed mode. Faced with the situation, we direct the AO to adopt stamp price of the land in issue in S.No.883/1/1, Nashik as on 04.10.2014 as the actual sale price in light of sec.56(2)(vii)(b) read with 1st and 2nd proviso therein than taking the fair market value as per the ready reckoner in issue (supra) as on 06.02.2016 and calculate the impugned addition as per these assessees’ respective share of 12% and 11% each (supra) is assessee’s case, respectively. Assessing Officer may thereafter re-compute the impugned addition after referring the issue to the DVO u/s 56(2)(vii) 3rd proviso as per law preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing. Department has not made any addition in other co-vendees hands u/s.56(2)(vii)(b) - We find no merit in the instant last half-hearted argument once it has been found as per our preceding detailed adjudication that the impugned statutory provision is indeed applicable in the given facts and circumstances of the case(s) (supra). Faced with the situation, we partly accept all these three assessees and Revenue’s six cross-appeals for statistical purposes and direct the learned Assessing Officer to adjudicate the instant sole issue afresh in light of our foregoing specific directions. Appeal partly allowed.
|