Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7022 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
09-09-2020
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
01-09-2020
Assessment Year
2016-2017
Appeal Filed On
30-04-2019
Judgement Text
ITA NO.924/BANG/2019 SRI SANDEEP PATIL, BANGALORE IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BBENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN , ACCOUTANT MEMBER ITA NO.924/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 SRI SANDEEP PATIL FLAT NO.1802, GROUND FLOOR 18 TH BLOCK, EMBASSY HABITAT VASANTHNAGAR BENGALURU-560 001 PAN NO :AKSPP0412B VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3)(5) BENGALURU APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI V. SRINIVASAN, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRIYADARSHI MISHRA, D.R. DATE OF H EARING : 01.09.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.09.2020 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2019 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-1, BENGALURU AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IN PARTIALLY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 56 (2)(VII)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) RELATING TO DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASE CONSIDERATION BE TWEEN SUB- REGISTRAR VALUE AND PURCHASE PRICE. 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE STATED IN BR IEF. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASE D A FLAT IN BENGALURU FOR A SUM OF RS.2,33,00,000/-. THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORI TY FOR THE ABOVE SAID FLAT WAS RS.3,34,83,000/-. HOWEVER, THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION ITA NO.924/BANG/2019 SRI SANDEEP PATIL, BANGALORE PAGE 2 OF 9 AT THE TIME WHEN AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS ENTERED IN TO WAS RS.3,11,16,000/- HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPO SED TO ASSESS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STAMP VALUE AT THE TIME OF ENTERING AGREEMENT TO SELL AND ACTUAL CONSIDERATION SHOWN PU RCHASE AGREEMENT AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 56(2)(VII)( B) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SALE WAS A DISTRESS SALE BY THE SELLER SINCE THE SELLER HAD LOST ORIGINAL TITLE DEE DS OF THE PROPERTY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE VALUE DETERM INED BY THE STAMP AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY OPTED FOR A REFEREN CE TO DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER FOR DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE (FMV) OF THE FLAT. SINCE THE REPORT OF DVO WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, THE A.O. A SSESSED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.78,16,000/- (RS.3,11,16,000/- (-) RS.2,33,00,000/-) AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 56(2)(VII)(B) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, UPON RECEIPT OF THE DVO VALUATION, WHO HAD VALUED T HE PROPERTY AT RS.2,68,86,400/-, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED A RE CTIFICATION ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY, REDUCED THE ADD ITION TO RS.35,86,400/- (RS.2,68,86,400/- ( ) RS.2,33,00,00 0/-). 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE A.O. BY FILING APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). BEFORE THE LD CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE VALUATION MADE BY DVO BY POINTING OUT DISCREPANCIES IN THE REPORT OF THE DVO. ON BEING CONVINCED, THE LD. CIT(A) ARRIVED AT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND ACTUAL CONSIDERATION AT RS.15,92,800/-. ACCORD INGLY, HE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.15,92,80 0/-. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE EXTRACT BELOW THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5.0 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE APP ELLANT AS WELL AS THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 12 GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM, WHICH ARE A LL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.35,86,400/- MADE U/S.56( 2)(VIIB) OF THE ITA NO.924/BANG/2019 SRI SANDEEP PATIL, BANGALORE PAGE 3 OF 9 ACT. AS PER THE AGREED FACTS, THE APPELLANT HAD PUR CHASED THE PROPERTY AT #1802, 18 TH FLOOR, EMBASSY HABITAT, 59, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU, FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,33,00,000/- UNDER THE SALE DEED DATED 25.01.2016. THIS SALE DEED CAME TO BE RE GISTERED FOR THE GUIDANCE VALUE OF RS.3,11,16,000/- AND THE A.O. PROCEEDED TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF RS.78,16, 000/- IN THE ORDER U/ S.143(3) DATED 21/12/2018 IN TERMS OF SECTION 56[2][VIIB] OF THE A CT. HOWEVER, SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD RAISED OBJECTIONS TO TREAT THE GUIDANCE VALUE AS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE (FMV) OF THE PROPERT Y PURCHASED, THE A.O. HAD MADE A REFERENCE TO THE DISTRICT VALUA TION OFFICER (DVO) ON 07.12.2018 AND OBSERVED THAT SUITABLE RECT IFICATION WOULD BE MADE ON RECEIPT OF THE VALUATION REPORT. T HEREAFTER, THE DVO RENDERED THE FINAL VALUATION REPORT DATED 02.01 .2019 DETERMINING THE FMV OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.2,68,86,4 00/- AS AGAINST THE GUIDANCE VALUE OF RS. 3,11,16,000/-. UP ON RECEIPT OF THE VALUATION REPORT, THE A.O. HAS PASSED THE IMPUG NED ORDER U/S.154 RWS 155(15) DATED 18.01.2019 REDUCING THE A DDITION TO RS.35,86,400/-. 5.1 IT IS THE APPELLANT'S CASE BEFORE ME THAT THE F MV OF THE PROPERTY ESTIMATED BY THE DVO IN TERMS OF THE FINAL VALUATION REPORT DATED 02.01.2019 IS EXCESSIVE FOR THE REASON THAT T HE DVO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE NEGATIVE FACTORS EXPLAINED BY THE AP PELLANT LIKE LOSS OF THE ORIGINAL TITLE DEED AND THE PROPERTY NOT BEING FREEHOLD AS IT WAS MORTGAGED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, W HICH HAD DRIVEN THE PRICES DOWN. IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE DVO HAD MADE A FURTHER ADDITION OF 6% OF THE FMV OF THE FLAT DETERMINED BY HIM AT RS. 2,48,92,800/- FOR SPECIAL AMENITIES / FACILITIES. I T IS THE CONTENTION THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR SUCH AN ADDITION OF 6% T O THE FMV OF THE FLAT AND AT BEST, THE FMV OF THE FLAT INCLUDING THE 2 CO VERED CAR PARKS SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN AT RS.2,53,92,800/- AND NOT RS.2,68,86,400/- . FINALLY, IT IS ALSO CONTENDED BY THE APPELLANT TH AT THE ADDITION MADE U/S.56(2)(VIIB) OF THE ACT, CANNOT STAND SINCE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FM V ESTIMATED BY THE DVO AND THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION PAID IS LESS THAN 15% WHEN CONSIDERED ON THE BASIS OF THE F MV AFTER DEDUCTING THE 6% MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SPECIAL AMENITI ES / FACILITIES. 5.2 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FINAL VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO DATED 02.01.2019. IN THE SAID VALUATION REPORT, THE DVO HAS STATED THAT HE HAS TAKEN THE GUIDANCE RATE ISSUED BY THE L OCAL AUTHORITY AS WELL AS COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCES OF OTHER PROPERTI ES FALLING WITHIN THE VICINITY AS THE BASIS FOR VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT. IT HAS BEEN STATED IN THE VALUATION REPO RT OF THE DVO THAT MOST TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN T HE VICINITY ARE AT PAR WITH GUIDANCE VALUE WITH LESSER VALUE OF REGISTRATI ON TO THE EXTENT OF 12%. HENCE, THE DVO ADOPTED THE GUIDANCE RATE ISSUE D BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD AS THE BASIS FOR VALUATION AND HAS GIVEN SUITABLE DEDUCTIONS TO ARRIVE AT THE FMV OF T HE FLAT. IT IS MY CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE GUIDANCE RATE ISSUED BY TH E LOCAL AUTHORITY FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD WOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE SPECIAL FEATURES AND AMENITIES AND THUS, WHEN THE BASIS FOR VALUATIO N IS THE GUIDANCE VALUE, NO SEPARATE ADDITION OF 6% OF THE FMV IS REQ UIRED TO BE MADE. IT IS SEEN THAT THE DVO HAS TAKEN THE FMV OF THE FL AT HAVING BUILT UP ITA NO.924/BANG/2019 SRI SANDEEP PATIL, BANGALORE PAGE 4 OF 9 AREA OF 2593 SFT INCLUDING UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND OF 1334.07 SFT. AT RS.2,48,92,800/, WHICH WORKS OUT TO EXACTLY 80% OF THE GUIDANCE VALUE OF RS.3,11,16,000/-. A FURTHER ADDITION OF RS .5,00,000/- TOWARDS 2 COVERED CAR PARKS HAS ALSO BEEN MADE BY THE DVO. HENCE, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT BEFORE ME THAT THE DVO HAS NOT REGARDED THE NEGATIVE FACTORS LIKE LOSS OF TITLE DEEDS, LEAS EHOLD PROPERTY, MORTGAGE, ETC., CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 5.3 HOWEVER, THERE IS SOME MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE FMV OF THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE TA KEN AT RS.2,48,92,800/- SINCE THE SPECIAL AMENITIES AND TW O COVERED CAR PARKS AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT WOULD BE COVERED IN THE FMV OF THE FLAT BASED ON THE GUIDANCE VALUE TAKEN AS THE B ASIS OF VALUATION. ON THIS BASIS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWE EN THE FMV OF THE PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION PAID COMES TO RS.15,92,800/-. THIS DIFFERENCE BETWE EN THE FMV OF THE PROPERTY AND THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION WORKS OUT TO 6.83% AND THE SAME IS NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT . 4. THE ASSESSEE ALSO ARGUED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THAT NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE U/S 56(2)(VII)(B) OF THE ACT, IF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND ACTUAL CONSID ERATION IS LESS THAN 10% OF THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION. THE LD. CIT( A), HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAID CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE SAME. AGGRIEVED ON THIS ASPECT, THE A SSESSEE HAS FILED T 5. THE LD. A.R. PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWIN G DECISIONS IN ORDER TO REITERATE HIS CONTENTIONS THAT NO ADDITION U/S 56(2)(VII)(B) OF THE ACT IS CALLED FOR, IF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TH E FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY AND THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION IS LESS TH AN 10% OF THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION. (A) SHRI RAMA JOGI REDDY SANEPALLI VS. ITO (ITA NO.34/BANG/2019 DATED 15.2.2019). (B) B.S. SANJAY (HUF) VS. ITO (ITA NO.1141/BANG/201 8 DATED 4.5.2018) (C) M/S. JOHN FOWLER (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (IT A NO.7545/MUM/2014 DATED 25.1.2017). ITA NO.924/BANG/2019 SRI SANDEEP PATIL, BANGALORE PAGE 5 OF 9 (D) CHANDRA PRAKASH JHUNJHUNWALA VS. DCIT (ITA NO.2351/KOL/2017 DATED 9.8.2019) 6. THE LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PARLIAME NT ITSELF HAS INSERTED THIRD PROVISO IN SECTION 50C(1) OF THE ACT , AS PER WHICH, IF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STAMP VALUE AND THE ACTUAL C ONSIDERATION IS 5% OR LESS THE SAME SHALL BE IGNORED W.E.F. 1.4.201 9. THE LIMIT OF 5% HAS BEEN INCREASED TO 10% W.E.F. 1.4.2021. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE EFFECT OF THESE AMENDMENTS HAS B EEN CONSIDERED BY THE KOLKATA BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CHA NDRA PRAKASH JHUNJHUNWALA (SUPRA) AND IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 50C SHOULD BE TREATED AS CURATIVE IN NATURE AND WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY FROM 1.4.2003 I.E. FROM THE DATE OF INSERTION OF SECTION 50C IN THE STATUTE. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT EVEN PRIOR TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 50C (1) OF THE ACT, THE COORDINATE BENCHES IN OTHER CASES REFERRED ABOVE HA S HELD THAT DIFFERENCE OF LESS THAN 10% SHALL BE IGNORED. IN T HIS REGARD, THE LD. A.R. INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JOHN FOWLER INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DIFFERENCE DETER MINED BY LD CIT(A) IS LESS THAN 10% OF ACTUAL CONSIDERATION AND HENCE THE SAME SHOULD BE IGNORED. 7. THE LD. D.R. ON THE CONTRARY, RELIED ON THE DECI SION RENDERED BY LD. CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 56(2)(VII )(B) OF THE ACT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY SUCH PROVISO CORRESPONDING TO THE T HIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 50C(1) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE PROVISO HA S ONLY PROSPECTIVE EFFECT. HE SUBMITTED THAT, UNDER THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION, THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SHALL HAVE TO BE INTERPRE TED STRICTLY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VII) (B) DOES NOT STATE THAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STAMP VALUE AND THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION ITA NO.924/BANG/2019 SRI SANDEEP PATIL, BANGALORE PAGE 6 OF 9 UPTO 10% SHOULD BE IGNORED. ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMIT TED THAT THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE UPHELD. 8. WE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE R ECORD, A SPECIFIC QUERY WAS PUT TO LD. A.R. AS TO WHETHER TH E THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 50C(1) OF THE ACT CAN BE APPLIED TO SECTION 56(2)(VII)(B) OF THE ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH PROVISO IN THAT SECTION. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE SELLER AND PROVISION S OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(B) ARE APPLICABLE IN THE HANDS OF BUYER IN RESPECT OF VERY SAME TRANSACTION OF TRANSFER OF LAND OR BUILDING. HENCE, THERE COULD NOT BE TWO DIFFERENT FAIR MARKET VALUE IN RESPECT OF THE VERY SAME PROPERTY, I.E. ONE IN THE HANDS OF THE SELLER AND ANOTHER IN THE HANDS OF THE BUYER. ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PRINCIPLES APPLIED TO DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE P ROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF THE SELLER SHOULD EQUALLY BE APPLIED IN TH E HANDS OF BUYER ALSO. 9. WE FIND MERIT IN THE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY LD. A .R. WE NOTICE THAT THE MUMBAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL HAS EXAMINED AN I DENTICAL ISSUE IN THE HANDS OF JOHN FOWLER INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND, BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION RENDERED BY JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE O F SMT. SITA BAI KHETAN VS. ITO (ITA NO.823/JP/2013 DATED 27.7.2016) , THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE V ALUE ADOPTED BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AND ACTUAL CONSIDERATION IS TO BE IGNORED AS THE SAME IS LESS THAN 10%. FOR THE SAKE OF CONV ENIENCE, WE EXTRACT BELOW OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ORDER PASSED BY MUMBAI BENCH. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE CASE LAW RE LIED ON. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE , THE ITA NO.924/BANG/2019 SRI SANDEEP PATIL, BANGALORE PAGE 7 OF 9 SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE IGNORED. THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THESE TWO PLOTS SOLD ON THE SAME D AY THOUGH BE SEPARATED AGREEMENTS, IS MORE THAN THE ST AMP DUTY VALUATION BY RS. 3,00,00,000/-. EVEN ASSUMING FOR A MOVEMENT THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF PLOT IN SURVEY NO. 22 AND 42 IS LESS THAN THE STAMP VALUATI ON IT IS RS. 33,48,284/- WHICH IS LESS THAN 10% OF THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF THE SAID PLOT. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF T HE RATIO OF THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESS EE SHOULD SUCCEEDED IN ITS APPEAL. THE JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CA SE OF SMT. SITA BAI KETAN (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER:- 4. 2 'WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD WE FIND THAT THE HON'B LE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 1.543/PN/2007 IN THE CA SE OF RAHUL CONSTRUCTIONS VS. DCIT (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UN DER:- 'WE FIND THAT THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSIT. VS. HARPREET HOTELS (P) LTD. VIDE ITA NO. 11 56- 1160/PN/2007 AND RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE HAD DISMISSED THE FILED BY THE REVENUE WHERE THE CIT(A) HAD DELETED THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN HOUSE CONSTRUCTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIGURE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSE E AND THE FIGURE OF THE DVO IS HARDLY 10 PER CENT. SIMILA RLY, WE FIND THAT THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CAS E OF ITO VS. KAADDUJAYGHOSHAPPASAHEBH, THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE J&K HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HONEST GROUP OF HOTELS (P) LTD . VS, UT (2002) 177 CTR (J&K) 232 HAD HELD THAT WHEN THE MARGIN BETWEEN THE VALUE AS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER WAS LESS THAN 10 PER CENT, THE DIFFERENCE IS LIABLE TO BE IG NORED AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE SUCH DIFFERENCE IS LESS T HAN 10 PER CENT AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT VALUATION IS ALW AYS A MATTER OF ESTIMATION WHERE SOME DEGREE OF DIFFERENC E IS HOUND TO OCCUR, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION TH AT THE AO IN THE INSTANT CASE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUBSTITU TING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 20,55,000/- AS AGAINST THE ACT UAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 149,00,000 DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO TAKE RS. I9,00,000/- ON LY AS THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY. THE GROU NDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED' ITA NO.924/BANG/2019 SRI SANDEEP PATIL, BANGALORE PAGE 8 OF 9 IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VAL UATION ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AND DECLAR ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN 10%. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON 'FILE COORDINATE BENCH, WE HERE BY DIRECT THE AO TO ADOPT THE VALUE AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESS EE. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSED I S ALLOWED'. 8. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECI SION WE DIRECT TO AO TO ADOPT THE VALUATION OF SALE CONSIDERATION AS DEC LARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF'FICER U/S. 5 0C IS DELETED AND AS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 10. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THE PARLIAMENT HAS INTRODUC ED THIRD PROVISO IN SECTION 50C(1) OF THE ACT, AS PER WHICH THE DIFFERENCE IN STAMP DUTY VALUATION AND ACTUAL CONSIDERATION SHOUL D BE IGNORED, IF IT IS LESS THAN 5%/10%. EVEN THOUGH THE SAID PROVI SION HAS COME INTO EFFECT FROM 1.4.2019/1.4.2021, WE NOTICE THAT THE KOLKATA BENCH OF TRIBUNAL HAS HELD IT TO BE CURATIVE IN NAT URE IN THE CASE OF CHANDRA PRAKASH JHUNJHUNWALA (SUPRA) AND ACCORDINGL Y HELD THAT THE PROVISO SHALL APPLY SINCE THE DATE OF INSERTION OF SEC.50C OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ABOVE SAID REASONING GIVEN B Y THE KOLKATA BENCH OF ITAT ALSO SUPPORTS THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS WE FIND ME RIT IN THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTICE THAT THE ADDITIO N OF RS.15,92,800/- SUSTAINED BY LD CIT(A) WORKS OUT TO LESS THAN 10% OF THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,33,00,000/- PAI D BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE MODIFY THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE A.O. TO IGNORE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEE N FAIR MARKET VALUE DETERMINED BY CIT(A) AND THE ACTUAL CONSIDERA TION AS THE SAME IS LESS THAN 10% OF THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION. ITA NO.924/BANG/2019 SRI SANDEEP PATIL, BANGALORE PAGE 9 OF 9 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH SEPT 20 SD/- (N.V. VASUDEVAN) VICE PRESIDENT SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED 9 TH SEPT, 2020. VG/SPS COPY TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.
