9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in. The ld PCIT on examination of assessment folder came to the conclusion that the assesse has purchased a flat for Rs. 67,50,000/- as per registered agreement dated 10.12.2014 whereas the stamp value of the flat as on that was 1,39,38,500/. According to ld PCIT, since the agreement value is less than the stamp value and therefore difference between the two should have been added to the total income of the assesse u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Accordingly the ld PCIT issued show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act dated 17.03.2021.The ld PCIT after considering the submissions of the assesse passed revisionary order u/s 263 of the Act by setting aside the assessment framed by the AO and directed the AO to examine the issue again. 4. The ld AR vehemently submitted before us that the ld PCIT has not correctly appreciated the facts of the case as the flat no. A/802 Metropolis, J.P. Road Andheri (West) was purchased 25.02.2010 for a total consideration of Rs. 67,50,000/- as per allotment letter dated 25.02.2010 and not on 10.12.2014 as observed by the ld PCIT . Even the entire consideration of Rs. 67,50,000/- was paid by 30.06.2010 as per details below: 24.02.2010 038408 dt23.02.2010 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited in the orders passed by the authorities below as well as cited before us and we have also gone through the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From perusal of the impugned order, we noticed that the case of the ld. Pr. CIT is that the AO failed to invoke the provisions of S. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act during assessment and hence non-invoking the provision of S. 56(2)(vii)(b) rendered the assessment order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He noted that there was no agreement for sale as such and the sale/ conveyance deed was entered into on 09.12.2014 and therefore the provisions of S. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) were clearly applicable. He also denied the benefit of the proviso to said section inasmuch as because the date of the sale deed and the date of registration are the same. The judgement cited by the assessee in the case of Sanjay Kumar Gupta Vs ACIT in ITA No. 227/JP/2018 order dated 05/10/2018 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal was also held distinguishable. Though he sent the matter back to the assessing officer to complete the assessment afresh after giving the opportunity to the assessee, however, we are of the view tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itself. We do not find merit in the contention of the ld. CIT that it was a mere provisional attachment which was subject to further changes because of the unexpected happening which may be instructed by the approving authority, resulting into increase or decrease in the area and so on because it is a standard practice so as to save the seller (builder) from the unintended consequences. However, for all intent and practical purposes such an allotment letter constituted a complete agreement between the parties. We find that the judgement cited by the ld. AR in the cases of Shikha Birla Vs. Ambience Developers Pvt. Ltd., MANU/DE/2524/2008 and Dilip M. Muni and Ors. Vs. Monarch & Qureshi Builders, MANU/NULL/0062/2019, support the contention of the AR though based on S. 54. We draw strength from the decision in the case of Hansmukh N. Gala vs. ITO (2015) 173 TTJ 537, wherein it was held as under: "Capital gains-Exemption under s. 54-Purchase of new house vis-a-vis booking advance to builder-Assesse paid Rs. 1 crore as booking advance to a builder for purchase of new residential house after selling his old residential property- Though the legal title in the said property has not pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded law, specifically made applicable for and from A.Y. 2014 15 that any receipt of the immoveable property with inadequate consideration has been subjected to the provisions of S. 56(2)(vii)(b) but not before that. Hence, the applicability of the said provision in such cases, could not be insisted in the assessment years prior to a A.Y. 2014- 15. Having said this, in this case, there was a valid and lawful agreement entered by the parties long back in A.Y. 2010-11 only, when the subject property was transferred and substantial obligations were discharged. The law contained in S. 56(2)(vii)(b) as stood at that point of time, did not contemplate a situation of a receipt of property by the buyer with for inadequate construction. Hence, we are of the considered view that the ld. Pr.CIT erred in applying the said provision. Because of the mere fact that the flat was registered in the year 2014 falling in A.Y. 2015-16 on the fulfillment of the conditions, the amended provision of S. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) could not be applied. Our view finds support from the decision in the case of Bajranglal Naredi vs. ITO (2020) 203 TTJ 925 (Ranchi) (DPB 1-4) wherein it was held that: "Income from other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
