DESH MITTER GAIND,PANCHKULA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA, HARYANA

ITA 454/CHANDI/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around the assessment of capital gains tax on the sale of a residential property by Desh Mitter Gaind in Panchkula during the financial year 2010-11. The Income Tax Department contended that the assessee had not declared the correct amount of capital gains, as there was a significant difference between the sale consideration declared and the stamp duty valuation of the property. The Assessing Officer (AO) added the difference as short-term capital gains to the assessee's income for the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee appealed against this decision, arguing that the agreement to sell was executed in January 2010, and part of the sale consideration was received before the registration of the sale deed, thus the lower value should be considered for tax purposes. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's argument, citing the retrospective applicability of the amended provisions of Section 50C.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 28661 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. ACIT, Rahul G. Patel vs. DCIT, Smt. Chalasani Naga Ratna Kumari vs. ITO, Alom Extrusions Ltd. vs. CIT, Amit Bansal vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Karnal, ACIT vs. Thomson Press India Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH MONGA
• Keywords: Set aside; Capital asset; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital Gains
• Section: 148; 143(2); 250; 48; 43B; 50C; 246A

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपील य अ\u000bधकरण,च\u0010डीगढ़ \u0014यायपीठ , च\u0010डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 454/CHD/2023 \u0001नधा\u0005रण वष\u0005 / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Desh Mitter Gaind, House No. 235, Sector 6, Panchkula. Vs The ITO, Ward-1, Panchkula. \fथायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AATPG3730E अपीलाथ\u0017/Appellant \u0018\u0019यथ\u0017/Respondent \u0001नधा\u0005\u001aरती क\u001d ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Monga, CA राज\fव क\u001d ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT-Sr.DR तार ख/Date of Hearing : 25.11.2024 उदघोषणा क\u001d तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.01.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING आदेश/ORDER PER PARESH M. JOSHI, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) as and by way of second appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order OF CIT(A) bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1053342436(1) dated 31.05.2023 which is ITA 454/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 2 hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order” which is passed under Section 250 of the Act at first appellate stage. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. Factual Matrix Proceedings before ld. AO 2. The information was available with the Income Tax Department that the assessee had sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs.2,42,00,000/- during the Financial Year 2010-11 relevant to assessment year 2011-12. 3. That the verification of information was required and therefore notice(s) were issued to the assessee from time to time but no reply was filed by the assessee. 4. The assessee had failed to file the return of income for the assessment year 2011-12, therefore, the capital gain arisen on sale of land amounting to Rs.2,42,00,000/- has been found unexplained. 5. That a notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2018 with the prior approval of the Principal ITA 454/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 3 Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula for the assessment year 2011-12 by Speed Post was issued. 6. On 20.11.2018 the assessee vide letter contended that he had already filed Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2011-12 declaring an income of Rs.2,32,043/- vide acknowledgement No.6521008352 on 31.03.2012 and that the same ITR may kindly be treated as ROI filed in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act. 7. That statutory notice(s) under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire were issued on 20.11.2018 which was duly served upon the assessee. In response thereto, the assessee filed written submissions alongwith replies to various queries as per questionnaire which were placed on record. The case was discussed with him from time to time. 8. After discussion and verification of details/ information and bank statement filed during the course of hearing, the following additions/ disallowances made are discussed as under:- ITA 454/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 4 (i) From the perusal of sale deed, it was noticed that the assessee had sold a residential property bearing No. 595, Sector 6, Panchkula for a consideration of Rs.2,42.00,000/- whereas the value of stamp duty was assessed by the valuation authority on the value of Rs.3,16,20,230/- thus there was a difference of Rs.74,20,230/-(Rs.3,16,20,230/- - 2,42,00,000/-). Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 29.11.2018 was issued to the assessee, the contents of which are reproduced as under: \"In connection with your assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2011-12, you are requested to attend this office on 04.12.2018 at 1130 AM either in person or through an authorized representative along with Bank statements etc. You are also requested to furnish the following information on the above date of hearing: - 1. On the perusal of computation of income, it is noticed that the assessee has sold residential property bearing No.595, Sector-6, Panchkula for a consideration of Rs.2,42,00,000/- whereas the value of stamp duty assessed by the valuation authority on the value of 3,1620,730/- during the Financial Year 2010-11. This transaction attracts the provisions of section 50C (1) of the Income Tax Act', 1961 in the hands of the assessee. For the sake of clarity, to requisite of Section 50C(l) of the Act is reproduced as under:- 50C(1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the \"stamp valuation authority\") for 'the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or assessed or assessable shall, for the purposes ITA 454/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 5 of section 48. be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. \" In view of the above, the calculation of short term capital gain u/s 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is as under:- 1. Sale price (Assessed by Stamp Valuation Authority) 3,16,20,230/- 2. Less: Sale Expenses 4,84,000/- 3 . Net Sale Consideration 3,11,36,230/- 4 . Less: Sale price 2,32,69,212/- 5. Actual short capital gain u/s 50C 78,67,018/- 6. Less: already declared 4,46,788/- 7. Short term capital gain not declared by the assessee 74,20,230/- Keeping in view of the above, the assessee has not declared short term capital gain) to the tune of Rs.74,20,230/- on the sale of residential property during the year under consideration. You are requested to please furnish your reply to the queries as stated above and show cause as to why the short term capital gain amounting to Rs.74,20,230/- may not be added to the taxable income of the assessee.\" (ii) In response thereto, the AR of the assessee has filed its reply on 05.12.2018, which are reproduced as under: 'The assessee had sold H. No. 595 Sector 6, Panchkula for Rs.242 00 Lakhs during the assessment year under consideration. Since, there is a difference in collector rate and actual payment received by the assessee on sale of this house property, you intend to apply the provisions of Section 50C in the case of assessee In this regard, we wish to submit that the Agreement to Sell of this property was entered by the assessee in January, 2010 i.e. in assessment year 2010-11, when the collector rate o f the property in Sector 6, Panchkula was Rs.24,000/- per sq. mtrs. If we apply this rate then there will be no difference in the collector rate and the amount at which the property was sold by the assessee. The copy of agreement to Sell dated January, 2010 is also attached herewith for your ready reference. As per the proviso of Section 50C of the Act:- \"Where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for the transfer of the capital asset are not the same, the value adopted or assessed or ITA 454/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 6 assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purposes of computing full value of consideration for such transfer: Provide further that the first proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration or a part thereof, has been received by way of an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or by use of electronic system through a bank account, on or before the date of the agreement for transfer.\" Since in this case, the assessee had already entered into an Agreement to during the financial year 2009-10 and had also received the advance towards the sale of property, the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement, i.e. Rs.24,000/- per sq. mtr., may be taken for the purposes of computing full value of consideration for such transfer and if we take this value then there will be no difference in the stamp duty valuation and actual sale consideration. - Further, in this regard we would also like to submit that, even if the above said provision u/s 50C (1) has been inserted with effect from 01.04.2017, this amendment is curative in nature and shall be given retrospective affect from 01.04.2003, i.e. the date from which Section 50C was introduced in the Act. In this regard we wish to rely upon the judgment of Ahmedabad ITAT in the case of Dhraramshibhai Sonani vs. ACIT in which the ITAT while relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306) had allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee. So, on this basis, no addition shall be made in the returned income of the assessee due to difference in above said valuation. (iii) That the aforesaid reply of the assessee was considered carefully by the ld. AO. In response thereto again Show Cause Notice was issued to the assessee which was as under: \"On the perusal of reply filed by the assessee on 05.12.2018 in which the assessee has relied upon the judgement of Ahmedabad ITAT in the case of Dharamshilabhai Sonani Vs. ACIT in which ITA 454/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 7 the JTAT while relying upon me judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR306) on the issue of 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this context, it is stated that the judgement relied upon the assessee under section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not applicable in the instant case due to the following reasons:- i) The Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad has not allowed the appeal of the assessee. Infact the case mentioned of the assessee has been set aside for fresh adjudication with certain conditions which are as follows:- \"The plea of the assessee is indeed well taken and deserve acceptance. What follows is this. The matter will now go back to the Assessing Officer. In the case he finds that a registered agreement to sell, as claimed by the assessee as actually executed 29.06.2005 and the partial sale consideration was received through banking channels, the Assessing Officer, as on 29.06.2005, of the property sold as it existed at the point of time.” As such the ratio of judgement doesn't apply on the facts of your case. Moreover, the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court which have been relied upon for the retrospective applicability of the proviso to section 50C is also not applicable as the judgement was rendered in relation to the section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of the above, please explain as to why the short term capital gain to the tune of Rs.74,20,230/- on the sale of residential property during the year may not be added to the total income of the assessee during the year under consideration.” (iv) In response to the query, the AR of the assessee has filed its reply on 07.12.2018 which is reproduced as under : That in Para 10 of the judgment in the case of Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, the ITAT. Ahmedabad has clearly mentioned that:- The amendment in Section 50C WAS brought in to provide relief to the assessee in a situation in which the stamp duty ITA 454/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 8 valuation of a property has risen between the date of execution of agreement to sell and execution of sale deed.\" In this regard, we also wish to rely on another judgment of Ahmedabad ITAT in the case of Rahul G. Patel vs. DCIT. In this case the ITAT bench while allowing the benefit to the assessee and setting aside the issue to the file of AO had held that:- \"The Ld AO shall call for circle rate for the purpose of stamp duty valuation of this property as on 08.02.2010. He shall determine the sale value of the property on the basis of circle rate applicable on this property on 8.2.2010, and thereafter compute long term capital gain assessable in the assessment year 2013-14. In other words, transfer of this property would be construed on 5.6.2012, but the full value of consideration is to be equivalent to the amount on which stamp duty was payable on 8.2.2010\" In this regard, we also wish to rely on judgment of Visakhapatnam bench of ITAT in the case of Smt. Chalasani Naga Ratna Kumari vs. ITO. In this case the Vishakhapatnam bench of ITAT bench while allowing the benefit to the assessee had that: \"Although stamp duty value of the property has been changed as on the date of sale deed for the purpose of determination of deemed consideration u s 50C of the Act, stamp duty value of the property as on the date of execution of agreement to sale should be adopted instead of value on the date of execution of sale deed. Therefore, we are of the view that the AO was erred in adopting value of the property as on the date of sale deed to determine deemed consideration under Section 50C of the Act. Hence, we direct the AO to adopt value of the property as on agreement to sale for the purpose of computation of capital gain under Section 50C of the Act .” Further, although the judgments in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 MR 306) and A lied Motors (P) Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India are on the retrospective applicability of amendments in the provisions of Section 43B of the Act, but in these decisions the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had made a general comment that when the amendment in the Act is of a curative in nature then the it shall be given retrospective affect So, it is once again submitted that the judgment of the Ahmedabad ITAT in the case of Dharamshibhai Sonani applies in this case and you are once again requested to kindly allow the benefit to the assessee and oblige.\" ITA 454/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 9 (v) The contention of the assessee has been considered carefully. What transpires from the assessee counsel's submission is that it has accepted the fact that it's case is covered by the provisions of section 50C as it stood before the amendment w.e.f. 1.4.2017 and therefore is not entitled to get any relief. Therefore, alternatively, the assessee counsel has made an effort to prove that its case is covered by the conditions of 1st and 2nd proviso to section 50C which have been inserted wef 1.4.2017 onwards, whereas assessed case relates to AY 2011-12 The assessee counsel is seeking its retrospective operation so as to make it applicable on the facts of its own case. Although the amended provisions of section 50C are not applicable on the facts of the assessee's case still for the sake of natural justice the contention of the assessee is being considered keeping in view the amended provisions of Section 50C. The 1st and 2nd proviso to Section 50C are reproduced as under :- Provided where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for the transfer of the capital asset are not the same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation Authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purposes of computing full value of consideration for such transfer: Provided further that the first proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration, or a part thereof, has been received by way of an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or by use of electronic clearing system through a bank account, on or before the date of the agreement for transfer.] The assessee is seeking the benefit of amended provisions of section 50C on the strength of an un-registered agreement to sell purported to be entered into on 18.01.2010 wherein receipt of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- through account payee cheque towards the sale of immovable property. The assessee has declared long term capital gains that has arisen to it on this immovable property during the F.Y. 2010-11 by taking sale price at Rs.2,42,00,000/-. The question is when long term gain or short term gain arises. It is on the date on which an asset (whether long term or short term) is transferred. As per section 2(47) of the LT.Act, 1961:- transfer\", in relation to a capital asset, includes,— (i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset; or (ii) the extinguishment of any rights therein ; or (iii) the compulsory acquisition thereof under any law ; or (iv) in a case where the asset is converted by the owner thereof into, or is treated by him as, stock-in-trade of a business carried on by him, such conversion or treatment; or (iva) the maturity or redemption of a zero coupon bond; or (v) any transaction involving the allowing of the possession of any immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract of the ITA 454/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 10 nature referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882); or (vi) any transaction (whether by way of becoming a member of, or acquiring shares in, a co-operative society, company or other association of persons or by way of any agreement or any arrangement or in any other manner whatsoever) which has the effect of transferring, or enabling the enjoyment of any immovable property. In the light of Section 2(47) it has to be first ascertained whether the purported agreement to sell dated 18.01.2010 indicate anything to the effect that the assessee had in fact relinquished or extinguished her right in the said property in favour of the purchaser or had allowed the possession of the property to be taken in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The purported agreement to sell does not indicate of any such event. There is nothing in the agreement which may suggest that the assessee had in a fact conveyed her rights, interest, lien and title to the purchaser. Mere acceptance of full or part of consideration by the seller cannot constitute transfer of asset unless there is specific mention about the relinquishment or extinguishment of right of the seller in the asset sold or possession of the said asset has been given. The assessee has herself declared the capital gains in the instant year meaning thereby the transfer of asset was complete in the FY 2010-11 itself. The other reason why this agreement to sell is unreliable is that it is not registered with any authority which may lend any credence to it. The assessee cannot take the benefit of the amended proviso to without proving that the transfer of the asset actually took place or any rights of the assessee in the said asset were extinguished during the FY 2009-10 and the sale agreement dated 18.01.2010 is an instrument which can be relied upon. Hence the purported agreement to sell furnished by the assessee does not fulfill the conditions of proviso to Section 50C. The assessee's case would have been covered by the proviso to the Section 50C only if he had allowed the possession of the property and declared the capital gains in the FY 2009-10 relevant to the AY 2010-11. The provisos to section 50C can only be invoked in such cases. Hence the assessee's contention is not tenable, devoid of merit and therefore it is held that the proviso to Section 50C though not applicable for the assessment year 2011-12 but also on merit would not have been applicable on the facts of the case even after the amendment w.e.f. 1.4.2017 onwards. (vi) The ld. AO “Keeping in view the above discussion it is clear that the assessee transferred the rights, lien in immovable property during the FY 2010-11 relevant to the AY 2011-12 which is indicated in the sale deed registered on 16.04.2010 and was thus liable to declare short term capital gain on full value of consideration i.e. 3 , 1 6 , 230/-- as assessed by the Stamp Valuation Authority. As the assessee has adopted Rs.2,42,00,000/- as full value of consideration, the difference of ITA 454/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 11 Rs.74,20,230/- (Rs.31620230/- - Rs.23269212/-) is added to the returned income under the head taxable income of the assessee. 9. The ld. AO vide his order dated 07.12.2018 passed under Section 143(3)/147 of the Act has computed the total income of the assessee as under : Net taxable income as shown Rs.02,32,043/ in the return of Income Add: Addition (supra) Rs.74,20,230/- Total taxable income Rs.76,52,273/- Round off Rs.76,52,280/- Proceedings before CIT(A) 10. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of ld. AO dated 07.12.2018 prefers first appeal in terms of Section 246A of the Act before ld. CIT(A) who in the impugned order has observed and held as under : 10.1 Sole ground is addition under Section 50C of the Act amounting to Rs.74,20,230/-. 10.2 The AO noticed that assessee had sold a residential property bearing No. 595, Sector 6, Panchkula for a consideration of Rs.2,42,00,000/- whereas value for the purpose of Stamp Duty assessed by the Valuation Authority ITA 454/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 12 was Rs.3,16,20,230/-, thus there was a difference of Rs. 74,20,230/- [Rs.3,16,20,230/- - Rs.2,42,00,000/- ]. The AO brought out in the assessment order that the assessee is seeking the benefit of amended provisions of Section 50C on strength of an unregistered agreement to sell purported to have been entered into on 18.01.2010 wherein receipt of Rs.1.75 Cr through account payee cheque towards the sale of immovable property is also recorded. The AO did not accept the argument of the assessee and the AO held that the assessee transferred the rights, lien in immovable property during Financial Year 2010-11 relevant to assessment year 2011-12 as is indicated in the Sale Deed registered on 16.04.2010 and thus was liable to declare Short Term Capital Gain on full value of consideration i.e. Rs.3,16,20,230/- as assessed by the Stamp Valuation Authority. As per AO, the Proviso to Section 50C, the Stamp Duty is applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2017 and not applicable to the assessee's case. The AO held that the assessee had adopted Rs.2,42,00,000/- as full value of consideration, the difference of Rs.74,20,230/- is added to ITA 454/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 13 the returned income of the assessee as Short Term Capital Gain. 10.3 The ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order has held as under: 6.2 I have gone through the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. It is a fact that the appellant sold a residential property bearing No.595, Sector 6. Panchkula for a consideration of Rs.2,42,00,000/-. However, the stamp duty valuation of the property is Rs.3,16,20,230/-, thus there is a difference of Rs.74,20,230/-. It is seen from the assessment order that the appellant has accepted the fact that his case is covered by the provisions of Section 50C as it stood before the amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2017. The appellant’s main contention is that he had entered into agreement to sell the property in January 2010 AO in assessment year 2010-11 and received an advance of Rs.175 lakhs, when the collector (SRO) rate of the property in Sector 6, Panchkula was Rs.24,000/- per sq.mtrs and if this rate is applied then there would not have been any difference in the collector rate and amount at which the property was sold by the appellant. The appellant relied on various ITAT decisions which held that the proviso to section 50C introduced through amendment in 2017 is curative in nature and therefore applicable retrospective. The above decisions relied upon by the appellant are not applicable to this case as these are not jurisdictional binding in the appellant’s case. Further, the amended law clearly states as applicable from 01.04.2017 and there is no legislative authority to extent it restrospectively. The parliament as and when it sought to provide relief, the provisions were actually retrospective. In the absence of any legislative backing, the action of the AO to assess the difference between SRO value and sale consideration as taxable in the year is upheld and the ground No.2 is dismissed ITA 454/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 14 11. The assessee being aggrieved by the impugned order has preferred appeal before us and in Form No.36 has raised following grounds against the impugned order : “1. That the order of ld. Assessing Officer is bad and against law and facts. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld addition, amounting to Rs.74,20,230/-, u/s 50C of the Act without considering the fact that the agreement to sell was entered by me in the immediate previous Financial Year. In fact the substantial payment was also received during the immediate previous Financial Year. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed off. Record of Hearing 12. The hearing before us took place on 25.11.2024 when both the parties i.e. ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee and ld. DR for and on behalf of the Revenue appeared before us. Both the parties were treated equally and equal opportunity was afforded to both the parties. The ld. AR briefly stated the facts of the case in dispute and stated that in the present fact, the moot question for determination is whether by virtue of Section 50C of the Act what/which should be relevant value for immovable property/capital asset for capital gain i.e. whether value at the time of Agreement for Sell of immovable property or value at the time of Registration of Sale Deed at the office of SRO [Sub ITA 454/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 15 Registrar’s Office-an office where Registration of document like sale deed takes place and stamp duty is paid according to the rate fixed by State Govt. for payment of Stamp Duty (Circle rate)]. In the instant case, value for the purpose of capital gain has been taken as Rs.3,16,20,230/- value- assessed by Valuation authority SRO-the Circle rate and not Rs.2,42,00,000/- the value as per agreement for sell of immovable property. If later value is taken into consideration i.e. Rs.2,42,00,000/- effect would be negligible whereas if value as per Valuation Authority [SRO- Circle rate] is taken into, then effect would be substantial. Ld. AR stated that ld. AO and CIT(A) has taken into consideration SRO-Circle rate value of Rs.3,16,20,230/- and have minused Rs.2,42,00,000/- and have arrived at a difference of Rs.74,20,230/- and have added this amount of difference in value to the ROI and have determined Rs.76,52,280/- [rounded off] as total income of the assessee exigible for tax [Rs.2,32,043 + 74,20,230/-]. According to ld. AR the correct and appropriate value of immovable property should be Rs.2,42,00,000/- which was fixed and determined inter-se between two parties by virtue of a ITA 454/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 16 agreement for sell of immovable property way back on Jan.,2010 where SRO-Circle rate was Rs.24000/- per sq.mtrs. The copy of Agreement to Sell dated Jan.,2010 was given to the ld. AO for ready reference [Sale Deed is dated 21.04.2010]. Sale Deed is placed on record of this Tribunal. The income Tax Authority have adopted full value of consideration for transfer [Sale Deed] as Rs.3,16,20,230/- - Sale price assessed by Stamp Valuation Authority – SRO – Circle rate basis and not Rs.2,42,00,000/- sale price/value received in full on 21.04.2011 [Sale Deed date]. The difference works out to Rs.74,20,230/-.The ld. AR has emphatically contended that price/value of Rs.2,42,00,000/- would prevail as it is contracted consideration as a whole by virtue of Agreement to Sell dated Jan 2010 and if this amount which was partly paid [Rs.1.75 Cr in January to March 2010] basis Agreement to Sell dated Jan.,2010 should hold the field and certainly not Rs.3,16,20,230/- price/value assessed by SRO-Circle rate Panchkula, Haryana.Further Rs.2,42,00,000/- is contracted full consideration of immovable property sold and full consideration was partly paid i.e. Rs.1.75 Cr on different ITA 454/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 17 dates by 19 cheques starting 18.01.2010 to 26.03.2010 which is a fact admitted and recorded in Sale Deed dated 21.04.2010 and remainder Rs.67,00,000/- was paid before SRO on 21.04.2010 [Sale Deed date]. In sale deed dated 21.04.2010 both payment and respective dates evidencing full consideration value is recorded which is Rs.2,42,00,000/- in aggregate. It is required to be noted and appreciated that figure of 1.75 Cr falls in Financial Year 2009-10-, assessment year 2010-11 and remainder Rs.67,00,000/- falls under Financial Year 2010-11 assessment year 2011-12 [which is year under consideration]. The ld. AR has relied upon two decisions of ITAT which are ACIT Vs Thomson Press India Ltd. [2023] 153 taxmann.com 143 [Delhi Tribunal] and Amit Bansal Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Karnal [2018] 100 taxmann.com 334 (Delhi Tribunal ) and has interalia contended that – whether where date of Agreement fixing amount of consideration and date of registration regarding transfer of capital asset in question are not same value adopted or assessed or assessable by Stamp Valuation authority on date of agreement is to be taken for the ITA 454/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 18 purpose of full value of consideration in view of proviso to Section 50C. In the present case, full value of consideration was Rs.2,42,00,000/- which was determined by way of “Agreement for Sell” dated January 2010 and part value of consideration of Rs.1.75 Cr was paid between January to March 2010 as and by way of 19 different cheques of different amounts which are recorded in Sale Deed dated 21.04.2010, however the remainder amount of Rs.67 lakh was paid at the time of Sale Deed before SRO-Panchkula, Haryana, the Valuation cum Registration Authority under Local Stamp Duty Act and Registration Act. Sale Deed dated 21.04.2010 evidences payment of Rs.22,19,700/- as Stamp Duty on 16.04.2010 vide Receipt No.144966 dated 16.04.2010 of State Bank of India. The ld. AR finally prayed that impugned order is not legal, proper and that erroneous reasoning is given in the “impugned order” which has no standing in law. Per contra ld. DR has gone by the “Impugned Assessment Order” and “Impugned Order” and has contended that both are legal and proper and same are ITA 454/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 19 according to law. It should not be disturbed and same should be upheld. 13. Observations, findings and conclusions 13.1 In the premises set out by us hereinabove we now have to decide legality, validity and the proprietary of the “Impugned Order” basis records of the case, arguments canvassed supra. Thus we have to adjudge and adjudicate this second appeal before us in accordance with law and binding judicial precedents. 13.2 We are of the considered opinion that language of Section 50C proviso is plain and simple and that there is no ambiguity in it. We reproduce Section 50C which is as under : Special Provision for full value of consideration in certain cases 50C.(1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the \"stamp valuation authority\") for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or assessed or assessable shall, for the purposes of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer : Provided that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for the transfer of the capital asset are not the same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp ITA 454/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 20 valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purposes of computing full value of consideration for such transfer: Provided further that the first proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration, or a part thereof, has been received by way of an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or by use of electronic clearing system through a bank account or through such other electronic mode as may be prescribed, on or before the date of the agreement for transfer: Provided also……………………” 13.3 We basis above Section are of the considered view in the present case, date of Agreement to Sell is January, 2010 by virtue of which the transaction price value/amount was Rs.2,42,00,000/- which was full consideration amount for a subject property [@ Rs.24000/- per sq. mtrs.] later on date of sale deed which is 21.04.2010 before SRO-Panchkula, the Stamp Duty of Rs.22,19,700/- was paid on 16.04.2010 on adopted/assessed price/value/amount of Rs.3,16,20,230/- We hold that by virtue of Section 50C proviso will come into operation ‘if amount of consideration or part thereof has been received by cheque on or before date of agreement for transfer. In present case assessee admittedly had received sum of Rs.1.75 Cr out of 2.42 Cr as part payment between January to March 2010 by 19 different cheques of ITA 454/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 21 different amount which are mentioned in Sale Deed which is document of title to the property and is dated 21.04.2010. Therefore, going by the language of proviso to Section 50C the date of Agreement to Sell dated January 2010 by virtue of which full amount of consideration was determined inter-se between the parties i.e. Rs.2.42 Cr would hold the field and not Sale Deed date of 21.04.2010 wherein only the value of Rs.3,16,20,230/- was adopted/assessed by SRO-Panchkula Haryana only for limited purpose of payment of Stamp Duty of Rs.22,19,700/-. Accordingly, we hold that for the purpose of proviso to Section 50C the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration is January, 2010 and in pursuance thereof even part payment as contemplated by Section 50C [second proviso] of Rs.1.75 Cr was paid before Deed of Sale dated 21.04.2010 by cheque hence, date of agreement to sell which is January 2010 would prevail over Sale Deed. Hence, for the purpose of Section 48 full value of consideration should be Rs.2.42 Cr and not Rs.3,16,20,230/-. Further the “Impugned Order” has failed to give any sound reasoning in order to sustain the ITA 454/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 22 order of ld. AO. It is incumbent upon the CIT(A) to give sound logical reasoning basis law to sustain the order of ld. AO. 13.4 We have also gone through the judgements cited above and respectfully following judgements of ITAT Co- ordinate Benches, we also hold that amendment to Section 50C introduced by Finance Act, 2016 for determining full value of consideration in case of involved property is curative in nature and will apply retrospectively. ORDER 14. In the premises we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the assessee. 15. In result appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 29.01.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( PARESH M. JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER “Poonam” आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ\tेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u000f/ The Appellant 2. \u0003\u0010यथ\u000f/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु\u0014/ CIT 4. िवभागीय \u0003ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च\u0018डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड\u001c फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "