TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also given to the buyer and the assessee offered the capital gain from the impugned transfer in its income tax return for F.Y. 2007-08. We, therefore, are of the considered view that both the lower authorities erred in applying the valuation of the impugned property as per the stamp duty guideline for A.Y. 2007-08, merely for the reason that sale deed was registered on 04.08.2007. No addition was therefore, called for by applying the value of property at Rs.1,23,00,000/-. We accordingly delete the addition each made in the hands of both the assessees and allow the ground raised in both the appeals. - ITA No.916/Ind/2016 , ITA No.930/Ind/2016 - - - Dated:- 9-10-2018 - SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTAN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pressing ground No.1 2 wherein validity of reopening of assessment has been challenged. We, accordingly dismiss relevant ground no.1 2 of both these appeals being not pressed. 4. Now the only common issue relates to the addition of Rs.19,00,000/- which was made in the case of both the assessees by the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, thereby making additions under the head of long term capital gain. 5. For the purpose of adjudication, we are taking the facts of Mr. Manoj Yadav in ITA No. 916/Ind/2016. The assessee being individual filed return of income on 31.10.2007 declaring income at Rs.9,17,740/-. The case was reopened by way of issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the conditions needed to fulfill the requirement of provisions of section 2(47) of the Act for making a valid transfer were completed during the year. However, the sale deed was registered in the subsequent financial year on 04.08.2007. In the meantime the rates for calculating the stamp duty were revised. As a result the value adopted by the Assessing Officer was based on the guidelines as on the dated of registering of sale deed which is not correct. 10. Ld. counsel for the assessee also submitted that the impugned property was situated in the industrial area for which only 60% of the guidelines value of construction is to be considered. He also submitted that amendment has been brought in section 50C by the Finance Act 2016 w.e.f. 01 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. AO by invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act which stands confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 13. We observe that a joint property was owned by both the assessees who are husband and wife namely Manoj Yadav and Rukmini Yadav. The property was agreed to be sold during financial Year 2006-07(A.Y. 2007-08) on 24.03.2007 at consideration of Rs.85,00,000/-. Both the assessee s disclosed their share of sale consideration of Rs.42,50,000/- in their respective income tax return. It is not disputed that the alleged consideration was received during the F.Y. 2006-07 and possession of the impugned property was given to the buyer immediately on receiving the sale consideration on 24.03.2007. The issue arised when the Ld. AO was able to l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purpose of computing the full value of consideration for such transfer . The above proviso even though has been inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2017 but in various decisions it has been consistently held that the above proviso is clarificatory in nature and should be applied harmoniously on such cases, where there is a gap between the agreement to sale and the final date of registration of sale deed. 16. We find that coordinate bench in the case of DCIT vs. Indorie Foot Care Pvt. Ltd. (supra) dealt with the very same issue and while adjudicating the issue referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Income Tax (Appeals) is quite reasonable and meaningful. We may point out that the facts and circumstances of the present case are identical and similar to the facts of the case of Sanjeev Lal (supra). Therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was quite correct in adopting the same and following the order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of ITO vs. Modipan Limited; 168 TTJ 480 (ITAT Delhi). Finally, we are inclined to accept the contention of the respondent-assessee which was accepted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the circle rate prevailing on the date of registration of agreement to sell and not circle rate as on the date of sale deed, should be adopted as sale consideration for computation of income of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
