9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred in not giving the effect to the first proviso to Section 56(2)(Vii)(b) of the Income tax Act. He should have considered the stamp duty valuation on the date of booking of the flat in May/June 2012 instead of agreement registered in March 2016. 4. The learned ITO erred in charging interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. 5. The learned ITO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Sections 271(1)(c) and 27F of the Income tax Act." All the above grounds raised by the Appellant are directed against the addition of INR 55,87,000/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, and therefore, the same are being taken up together hereinafter. 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Appellant, a non-resident individual, did not file return of income for the Assessment Year 2016-17. Based upon the information received by the Assessing Officer that the Appellant has purchased an immovable property for INR 4,10,63,800/- bearing address - Flat No. 701, 7th Floor, Wing A, Rustomji Paramount, Village - Bandra G, Khar West, Mumbai, reassessment proceedings was initiated under Section 147 of the Act and notice, dated 27/03/2021, was issued/served on the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad, it is found that in this case, there are no two documents. There is only one document, namely, sale deed. There does not seem to be any separate agreement to sale entered in to between the assessee and the builder. So, the assessee is saying that the date of first booking amount should be taken as a deemed sale agreement and the stamp value should be reckoned with this date. And, that, the first booking was as on 5-6-12 of the amount of Rs 40,40,906/-. So, the stamp value as on this date should be taken. But, the AO says that there is no such booking amount. He is relying upon the chart as produced in the assessment order. 7.5 We on our part have also looked for the impugned cheque dtd 5-6-12. But, we also do not find it in the chart appearing in the assessment order. We have also gone through the sale deed or registered document as submitted by the assessee. The seventh schedule of the sale deed also gives an altogether different amounts to be paid to the builder from time to time. The impugned amount does not figure here too. That of course is the schedule. 7.6 However, we do find that there is a receipt at the fag end of the sale deed which refers to a total amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the above addition made in the Final Assessment Order, dated 24.01.2023, pursuant to the Direction, dated 20.12.2022, issued by the DRP, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal. 7. The Learned Authorised Representative of the Appellant appearing before us reiterated the submissions before the authorities below and impressed upon us the fact that proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act was introduced to protect assessees from hardship arising from adopting the date of the agreement as the relevant date for determining stamp duty for the purposes of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as the said proviso provided that in cases where an Appellant has entered into agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the amount of consideration referred therein (or part thereof) has been paid by a mode other than cash, on or before the date of the agreement for the transfer of such immovable property, the stamp value on the date of such agreement and not the registration of document shall be considered as the relevant date for determining stamp duty value for comparison with agreement value for the purposes of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 002436 Citi Bank 44,42,813/- 30.06.2012 662327 ICICI Bank 10,20,000/- 06.03.2013 002440 Citi Bank 9,48,544/- 27.03.2015 002444 Citi Bank 54,08,947/- 26.10.2015 27101132 RTGS 16,42,552/- 24.12.2015 281215545 RTGS 16,42,552/- xx.01.2016 270116055 RTGS 16,42,552/- 29.02.2016 0103161203 NEFT 16,42,552/- TOTAL 2,50,48,918/- 10. On perusal of above, we find that aggregate payment of INR.1,21,12,219/- was made by the Appellant by way of cheque payments to the sellers/developer till 30.06.2012. Thus, leaving the only difference of INR 2,06,921/- in the booking amount of INR.1,23,19,140/- and the actual aggregate payments of INR.1,21,12,219/- made till 30.06.2012. Therefore, in our view, the Appellant had substantially complied with the terms of making the booking. Further, the developer/seller has not raised any objection in this regard. In paragraph 3 of the Allotment Letter, dated 08.03.2016, the developer/seller has acknowledged the fact that booking was made by the Appellant on 05.06.2012 and pursuant thereto an aggregate amount of INR 2,50,48,918/- was paid by the Appellant on various dates by cheque/RTGS which included payment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
