TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aised by the Revenue is dismissed. Benefit u/s 43CA - difference between the value of stamp duty and the sale consideration as per agreement to sale u/s 43CA(1) of the Act on account of deemed income - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) held that the sub-section (3) of section 43CA does not provide the agreement fixing the value of consideration for transfer of assets should be registered. Therefore, we find that the view of the A.O in not giving benefit provided u/s 43CA(3) of the Act to the assessee is not justified. Further, the CIT(A) also discussed the relevant Explanatory note of Finance Act, 2013 for introduction of section 43CA of the Act which is reproduced by the CIT(A) in the impugned order - On perusal of the same, we note that the CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1961 [ the Act ]. 4. The brief facts relating to the issue on hand are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the activity of agriculture and trading in land. The assessee filed a return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,30,03,276/-. On the scrutiny, the A.O issued notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. 5. In first appeal, the CIT(A) restricted the addition on account of unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act to an extent of Rs. 8,35,667/- (Rs. 81,28,523/- (-) Rs. 72,92,856/-) and Rs. 2,77,390/- (Rs. 1,92,74,610/- (-) Rs. 1,89,74,610/-) u/s 43CA of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is before us. 6. Both the parties heard and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee earned i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee entered into notarised agreement to sell in 2009-2010 and registered sale deed in the year under consideration i.e. F.Y. 2013-14 relating to A.Y. 2014-15. The case of the A.O is that the value of stamp duty of the subject land is more than the consideration mentioned in the agreement entered in the years 2009 and 2010. Therefore, the A.O made an addition in respect of difference between the value of stamp duty and the sale consideration as per agreement to sale u/s 43CA(1) of the Act on account of deemed income. The CIT(A) held that the sub-section (3) of section 43CA does not provide the agreement fixing the value of consideration for transfer of assets should be registered. Therefore, we find that the view of the A.O in not giving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
