TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rance band fixed by virtue of amendment to Section 50C by the Finance Act, 2020 and thus, no addition can be made u/s. 56(2)(vii)(c) - We find that, the amendment brought to Section 50C by the Finance Act, 2018 and further amendment by Finance Act, 2020 is held to be retrospective in nature, as held in the case of Maria Fernades Cheryl [ 2021 (1) TMI 620 - ITAT MUMBAI] - Thus by virtue of said amendment to section 50C of the Act, if difference between guideline value and consideration paid for purchase of property is less than the tolerance band, then said difference cannot be considered as deemed consideration in the hands of the seller and consequently the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act cannot be invoked in the hands of the buyer. Since, difference between guideline value and consideration paid for purchase of property in the present case is less than tolerance band, we are of the considered view that no addition can be made u/s. 56(2)(vii)(c) - Thus, we direct the AO to delete addition made towards difference in value of property u/s. 56(2)(vii)(c) TDS u/s 194A - processing charges (upfront fee) paid for taking loan from bank - disallowance of certain expen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, delay may be condoned in the interest of advancement of substantial justice. 3. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly opposing condonation of delay petition filed by the assessee submitted that the reasons given by the assessee do not come within the ambit of reasonable and bonafide reasons, which can be considered for condonation of delay and hence, appeal filed by the assessee may be dismissed as not maintainable. 4. Having heard both sides and considered the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay, we are of the considered view that reasons given by the assessee for not filing the appeal within the time allowed under the Act comes under reasonable cause as provided under the Act for condonation of delay and hence, delay in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal filed by the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) confirming the additions to the extent of 10,79,630 is erroneous, contrary to law and Sustainable to the facts of the case. 2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.825000/- under sec.56(2)(v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act, at Rs. 8,25,000/- and disallowance of various expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS under respective provisions of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellant authority, but could not succeed. The Ld. CIT(A), for the reasons stated in their appellant order dated 28.01.2019, sustained additions made by the AO towards difference between guideline value and consideration paid for purchase of property and disallowance of expenditure u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no. 2 to 5 of assesse s appeal is addition of Rs. 8,25,000/- u/s. 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act, towards difference between guideline value and consideration paid for purchase of property. The assessee has purchased a property for consideration of Rs. 3,40,00,000/- and paid additional stamp duty of Rs. 66,000/-. The assessee was confronted with additional stamp duty paid, for which the assessee stated that the building value has been estimated which resulted in payment of additional stamp duty. The AO, after considering submissions of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration paid for purchase of property. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the reasons given by the AO to make additions towards difference in value of property u/s. 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. 11. As regards alternate plea of the assessee that, the difference between guideline value and consideration paid for property is less than the tolerance band fixed by virtue of amendment to Section 50C by the Finance Act, 2020 and thus, no addition can be made u/s. 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act, we find that, the amendment brought to Section 50C by the Finance Act, 2018 and further amendment by Finance Act, 2020 is held to be retrospective in nature, as held by ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Maria Fernades Cheryl vs ITO [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum). We, therefore of the considered view that by virtue of said amendment to section 50C of the Act, if difference between guideline value and consideration paid for purchase of property is less than the tolerance band, then said difference cannot be considered as deemed consideration in the hands of the seller and consequently the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act cannot be invoked in the hands of the buyer. Since, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
