Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 533 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) - difference between the Stamp Duty valuation as on the date of registration less the actual consideration paid - assessee submitted that the sale consideration agreed in the letter of allotment can be treated as an agreement for this purpose - assessee submitted that in so far as the ground of Revenue that the sale consideration is less than stamp duty valuation on the date of registration, the assessee has two fold submissions - date of allotment would be the date of purchase of immovable property - HELD THAT:- A bare perusal of the first Proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) would show that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not same, the stamp duty value as on the date of the agreement may be taken. The provisions of clause (b) to section 56(2)(vii) were amended by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01/04/2014. CIT(A) in the impugned order referred to the Memorandum to the Finance Act, 2013 explaining the reason for amending the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) - The purpose for introducing proviso to clause (b) to section 56(2)(vii) of the Act was to avoid taxable differential arising due to time gap between the booking of a property and registration of sale deed. In the case PCIT vs. Vempu Vaidyanathan [2019 (1) TMI 1361 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that for computing capital gain tax, the date of allotment of flat would be the date on which the purchaser of flat is stated to have acquired property. In the instant case, on the date of allotment the building was under construction and even on the date of registration of sale deed the assessee had not taken possession of the immovable property. Assessee had acquired right in the ownership of flat at the time of issuance of allotment letter. Therefore, in the facts of the case stamp duty value as on the date of allotment of flat is relevant. CIT(A) in the impugned order has referred to various decisions explaining the term “transfer” as per section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act - We concur with the findings of the CIT(A), hence, the same are upheld and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Appeal by the Revenue is dismissed.
|