INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAUSA V. SHRI SATYA NARIAN RAWAT, JAIPUR

ITA 874/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6190 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J C KULHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: P C PARWAL CA DHK
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 56

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, A M VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 874/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAUSA. CUKE VS. SATYA NARAIN RAWAT, PRO.P- M/S J.S. PLYWOOD AND TIMBER, PLOT NO. 2, TEACHERS COLONY, NEAR BABA MARKET, DCM, AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABUPR 1490 A VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI J.C. KULHARI (JCIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 04/04/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06/04/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE EMANATES FRO M THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR DATED 25/09/2017 FOR THE A.Y. 2 014-15. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 42,50,012/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERE NCE AMOUNT OF STAMP DUTY VALUE AND PURCHASE VALUE U/S 56(2)(VII)( B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). ITA 874/JP/2017_ ITO VS SATYA NARAIN RAWAT 2 2. WHILE PLEADING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, THE LD DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE AMENDED PROVISION OF SECTION 56(2)(VI I)(B) OF THE ACT SHALL NOT BE APPLICABLE IN ASSESSEES CASE AS THE ASSESSE E HAS TAKEN OVER THE POSSESSION OF PROPERTY ON 23/3/2013, IT WAS PRIOR TO APPLICATION OF ABOVE SECTION. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION AS T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(B) OF THE ACT IS NOT ATTRACTED. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO 31/3/2013 BY WAY OF A N AGREEMENT AND SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION WAS PAID BY CHEQ UE, THEREFORE, IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, THE PROVISIONS ARE NOT ATTRACTED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. THE L D. CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: - 5.3.2 I HAVE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE ABOVE M ENTIONED FACTS. I HAVE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE PROVISION OF THE ACT WHICH I N MY MIND IMPLIES THAT THE RECEIPT DATE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS SACROSANCT FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF SUB CLAUSE (B) OF CLAUSE (VII) OF SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 56 OF THE ACT. AS PER THE IKRAMAMA, THE APP ELLANT HAS GOT THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY ON 23/02/2013 AFTER PAYM ENT OF RS. 10 LAKHS OUT OF TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 11,21, 000/-. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER ITA 874/JP/2017_ ITO VS SATYA NARAIN RAWAT 3 BY THE APPELLANT ON 23/02/2013. EVEN THE TRANSFER O F PROPERTY ACT RECOGNIZES THE TRANSFER AS A RESULT OF PART PERFORM ANCE U/S 53 A OF THE TP ACT. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE LANGUAGE USED IN THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF THE ACT, IT IS MY CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 56(2.)(VII)(B) OF THE ACT IS N OT ATTRACTED AS THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER ON 23/02/2 013 I.E. BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE FOR APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 56( 2)(VII)(B) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.42,50,012/- IS DELE TED AND THE APPELLANTS GROUND OF APPEAL ON THE GROUNDS OF APPE AL NO. 1 & 2 ARE ALLOWED. FROM THE RECORDS WE FIND THAT THE CONSIDERATION DECL ARED FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY OF RS. 11,21,000/- HAS BEE N RECEIVED AS UNDER: RS. 500000/-CH NO. 854027 DATED 26.2.2013-CLEARED D URING 12-13 RS. 340000/- CH NO. 854035 DATED14.3.2013-CLEARED D URING 12-13 RS. 160000/- CH NO. 00131 DATED 14.3.2013-CLEARED D URING 12-13 RS. 121000/-CH NO. 896443 DATED 4.4.2013-CLEARED ON 9.4.2013 THUS, THE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY CH EQUE PRIOR TO 31/3/2013 AND THE AMENDED PROVISIONS W.E.F. 01/4/201 3 ALSO PROVIDE THAT WHERE THE DATE OF AGREEMENT FIXING THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION FOR TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND THE DATE OF REGI STRATION ARE NOT SAME. THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION ON THE DATE OF AGREEM ENT MAY BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SUB-CLAUSE AND THIS AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION REFERRED IN THE AGREEMENT OR PURCHASE DATE MUST HAV E BEEN PAID BY ANY MODE OTHER THAN THE CASH. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS MA DE PAYMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION AND TOOK P OSSESSION OF ITA 874/JP/2017_ ITO VS SATYA NARAIN RAWAT 4 PROPERTY AS PER THE AGREEMENT DATED 23/2/2013 PRIOR TO 31/3/2013. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DEL ETING THE ADDITION, THEREFORE WE SUSTAIN THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06/04/2018. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOT; IKY JKO FOT; IKY JKO FOT; IKY JKO HKKXPAN HKKXPAN HKKXPAN HKKXPAN (VIJAY PAL RAO) (BHAGCHAND) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 06 TH APRIL, 2018. *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- THE ITO, DAUSA. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- SHRI SATYA NARAIN RAWAT,JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 874/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR