Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Sister Of Charity St. Anne,, Vadodara on 19 April, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD "D" BENCH
(BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER
& SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
ITA. No: 1759/AHD/2016
(Assessment Year: 2007-08)
Deputy Commissioner of V/S Sister of Chrity of St. Anne
Income-tax (Exemptions) "Sneh Shanti", Provinical
Circle-2, Ahmedabad House Sevasi Road, Sevasi,
Vadodara
(Appellant) (Respondent)
PAN: AAATS 6630C
Appellant by : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R.
Respondent by : Shri Parmesh Doshi, A.R.
(आदे श)/ORDER
Date of hearing : 18 -04-2018
Date of Pronouncement : 19-04-2018
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
1. With this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the correctness of the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-9, Ahmedabad dated 23.05.2016 pertaining to A.Y. 2007-08.
2 ITA No. 1759/Ahd/2016. A.Y. 2007-08
2. The only grievance of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,25,19,635/-.
3. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that the assessee has entered into agreement for purchase of N.A Land admeasuring 26608 Sq. Mtrs. for a consideration of Rs. 87,71,765/- on 24.03.2005. The A.O. found that subsequently the final conveyance deed was executed for a consideration of Rs. 87,71,765/- utilizing stamp duty of Rs. 11,92,000/-. The A.O. found that the stamp duty paid was at Rs. 2,12,86,400/-. Taking a leaf out of the provisions of Section 50C of the Act, the A.O. issued a show cause notice to the assessee asking it to explain why Rs. 2,12,86,400/- be not taken as the full value of consideration for the purpose of the purchase of land and why the difference should not be added as unexplained investment u/s. 69B of the Act.
4. The assessee filed a detailed reply contending that the stamp duty value is deemed to be the full value of consideration in the hands of the seller and not the purchaser.
5. The contentions of the assessee were dismissed by the A.O. who was of the firm belief that provisions of Section 50C of the Act squarely apply on the facts of the case and accordingly treated the difference of Rs. 1.25 crores as unexplained investment and added the same u/s. 69B of the Act.
6. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and reiterated its contention that the provisions of Section 69 do not apply in the hands of the assessee.
3 ITA No. 1759/Ahd/2016. A.Y. 2007-08
7. After considering the facts and the submissions, the ld. CIT(A) was convinced that the deeming provision of Section 50C of the Act is applicable only to the seller and not the purchaser of the property. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that for making addition u/s. 69B of the Act, the burden is on the A.O. to prove with substantive proof that the investment made in the property exceeds the amount recorded in the books. The ld. CIT(A) concluded by holding that the A.O. has not brought out any independent evidence to prove that the investments in the purchase of land was more than the value reflected in the books of accounts and the A.O. has singularly depended upon Section 50C of the Act which is a deeming provision applicable to the seller of property for the purpose of computing capital gain. The ld. CIT(A) directed the A.O. to delete the addition 1.25 crores.
8. Before us, the ld. D.R. strongly relied upon the findings of the A.O. Per contra, the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities.
9. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed fact is that the assessee is the purchaser of the impugned property. It is also not in dispute that the provisions of section 50C of the Act for the subject assessment year is applicable in respect of the seller only. The deeming provision of Section 50C of the Act provides that the stamp duty value assessed or assessable shall be deemed to be the full value of consideration for the purposes of the computation of capital gains tax liability. Since the assessee is the purchaser of the property, in our considered opinion, provisions of Section 50C of the Act do not apply. Further, the A.O. has not brought on record any demonstrative material evidence which could suggest 4 ITA No. 1759/Ahd/2016 . A.Y. 2007-08 that the assessee has in fact paid a consideration of Rs. 1.25 crores over and above the consideration of transaction.
10. Considering the facts in totality, we do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in Open Court on 19- 04- 2018
Sd/- Sd/-
(RAJPAL YADAV) (N. K. BILLAIYA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER True Copy ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ahmedabad: Dated 19 /04/2018
Rajesh
Copy of the Order forwarded to:-
1. The Appellant.
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT (Appeals) -
4. The CIT concerned.
5. The DR., ITAT, Ahmedabad.
6. Guard File.
By ORDER
Deputy/Asstt.Registrar
ITAT,Ahmedabad