9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 853X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Chapter XX-C of the Act wherein the Apex Court accepted the tolerance limit of 15% which tolerance limit was followed by various Benches of the Tribunal throughout the country while adjudicating the issues with regard to provisions of section 50-C of the Act on sale of capital asset namely land or building or both. 1.ii. The Ld. CIT (A) did not appreciate that sub-section 1 of section 43CA is in parameteria with sec. 50(C)(1) of the Act except that sec.43CA(1) applies to stock-in-trade while section 50C(1) applies to sale of capital asset and, therefore, the principles laid down in the case of C.B. Gautam (supra) followed by Benches of ITAT throughout the country with regard to provisions of sec.50C of the Act applies with full force to sec.43CA of the Act which is the fact in the instant case. 1.iii. The Ld. CIT(A) further did not appreciate that in the decisions relied upon by the appellant, the stamp duty value on reference to DVO was scaled down and the appellate authority further reduced the value as determined by DVO based on the decision in the case of C.B Gautam (supra). 2. The CIT (A), in the circumstances, ought to have deleted the addition of Rs. 448350/- as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on as per the "agreement" was only in respect of the additional area purchased by the tenants, therefore, what could be considered for the purpose of applying Sec. 43CA was the stamp duty value of such additional area, which as per the assessee worked out at Rs. 46,88,350/- and not Rs. 74,23,500/- that was wrongly reported in the "Form No. 3CD". As such, it was submitted by the assessee, that as the stamp duty value adopted for the additional area purchased by the tenants worked out at Rs. 46,88,350/-, therefore, considering the actual sale consideration of Rs. 42,40,000/-, the 'deemed income' under Sec. .43CA worked out at Rs. 4,48,350/- [Rs. 46,88,350/- (-) Rs. 42,40,000/-]. At the same time, as the aforesaid difference worked out to 9.56% of the stamp duty value which was less than 15%, therefore, it was submitted by the assessee that the same in the backdrop of the judicial pronouncements was to be ignored and no addition was called for in its case. In sum and substance, it was the claim of the assessee that as the difference between the actual sale consideration received and the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority was less than 15%, therefore, no addition under Sec. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of his aforesaid contention, the ld. A.R had relied on certain judicial pronouncements viz. (i) C.B. Gautam Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1993 (1) SCC 78; (ii) Rahul Construction Vs. Dy. CIT (2010) 38 DTR (Pune) (Trib.) 19; (iii) ITO Ward-2(3), Kolkata Vs. M/s L.G.M Ltd. Kolkata (ITA No.267/Kol/2013); (iv) M/s John Fowler (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, 1(2), Mumbai, ITA 7545/Mum/2014; and (v) Smt.Seeta Bai Khetan s. ITO Ward 6(3), Jaipur (ITA No.826/JP/2013). 7. Per contra, the ld. Departmental representative (for short 'D.R') relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 8. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as the judicial pronouncements relied upon by them. After deliberating at length on the contentions advanced by the ld. A.R, we are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the same. It is the claim of the ld. A.R, that as the difference between the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority and the actual sale consideration received by the assessee on the transfer of the aforesaid property works out to 9.56% i.e less than 15%, therefore, no addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accruing as a result of the transfer shall, for the purposes of computing profits and gains from transfer of such asset, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration." On a perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision i.e Sec.43CA, we find, that no tolerance limit of 15% between the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority and the actual sale consideration received on the transfer of the asset (other than a capital asset) being land or building or both, was therein contemplated. On the contrary, a plain reading of the aforesaid statutory provision revealed, that if the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by the assessee of an asset (other than a capital asset), being land or building or both, was less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by an authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, then the value so adopted or assessed or assessable was mandatorily to be deemed as the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer, for the purposes of computing profits and gains from transfer of such asset. In fact, a perusal of the proviso made ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority and the actual sale consideration was less than 15%, then the same was to be ignored and no addition on the said count was called for in the hands of the assessee. As per the doctrine of statutory interpretation, no word howsoever meaningful it may so appear can be allowed to be read into a statutory provision unless the same had specifically been therein provided for. As observed by us hereinabove, it is only vide the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f 01.04.2019, that as per the 'proviso' incorporated in Sec. 43CA(1) that the legislature in all its wisdom had provided for a tolerance limit of 5% as regards the difference between the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority and the actual consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of the asset (other than a capital asset). As such, it is only w.e.f 01.04.2019, if the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority for the purpose of payment of stamp duty does not exceed one hundred and five per cent of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the asset (other than a capital asset), then the consideration so receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Court in a different context, therefore, the same being distinguishable as against the issue involved in the case before us, we decline to accept the support drawn by the ld. A.R from the said judicial pronouncement. As regards the remaining orders of the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal that have been relied upon by the ld. A.R, we find that neither of the said orders were rendered in specific context of Sec. 43CA. Alternatively, we may herein observe, that in neither of the aforesaid orders the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal had before them the 'proviso' to Sec.43CA(1) that has been made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f 01.04.2019. As observed by us hereinabove, as a tolerance limit of 5% between the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority and the actual consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of the asset (other than a capital asset), had been made available on the statute only vide the Finance Act, 2018 w.e.f A.Y. 01.04.2019, therefore, it would be absolutely incorrect to infer that prior to the aforesaid amendment a tolerance limit of 15% was already available and/or inbuilt in the said statutory provision. In our c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
