Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur
Smt. Rekha Agrawal, Raipur, Raipur vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 8 July, 2024
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर ायपीठ, रायपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
ी रिवश सूद, ाियक सद एवं ी अ ण खोड़िपया, लेखा सद के सम ।
BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM
(ITA No.282/RPR/2024)
(Assessment Year: 2015-16)
Smt. Rekha Agrawal, V Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
79, Jalwihar Colony, Raipur, s Circle-3(1), Raipur
492001, Chhattisgarh
PAN: ACJPA4542N
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) . ( थ / Respondent)
.
िनधा रती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, CA
राज की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of Hearing : 03.07.2024
घोषणा की तारीख/Date of : 08.07.2024
Pronouncement
आदे श / O R D E R
Per Arun Khodpia, AM:
The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, ADDL/JCIT (A)-12, Mumbai (in short "Ld. CIT(A)"), u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "The Act"), for the assessment year 2015-16 dated 03.04.2024, which in turn arises from the order of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 29.12.2017.
2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: 2 ITA No.282/RPR/2024
Smt. Rekha Agrawal
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned A.O. had erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs.9,51,000/- by invoking Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 disregarding the fact that the agreement for sale of land was executed on 31.03.2014 and part of the consideration was received through proper banking channel on the date of agreement, therefore, stamp duty value as on the date of agreement, was relevant in view of the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2016 which is curative in nature and therefore, has retrospective effect and the Learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.99,400/- holding the amendment brought by Finance Act, 2016 to be prospective in nature, which is unsustainable, hence, the addition is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. It is prayed that the addition of Rs.99,400/- confirmed by the Learned CIT (Appeal) may kindly be deleted.
2. Without prejudice to the aforesaid ground, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.909,400/- disregarding the fact that the actual consideration of the property sold was Rs.49,86,000/-
and the value determined by the DVO is Rs.50,85,400/-, as such, the value so determined being not more than 110% of the consideration received and therefore, as per Third proviso to Section 50C inserted by Finance Act, 2018, the consideration so received ought to have been deemed to be the full value of consideration for the purposes of Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, resultantly, the addition of Rs.99,400/- confirmed by the Learned CIT (Appeal) is unlawful, unjustified and unsustainable. It is prayed that the addition of Rs.99,400/- may kindly be deleted.
3. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.
3 ITA No.282/RPR/2024
Smt. Rekha Agrawal
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, derived income from trading of derivatives i.e., future and option transactions, trading in commodity derivatives and trading of shares under her proprietorship concern namely 'Rekha Agrawal Securities'. The assessee is also a partner in partnership firm namely B. K. Agrawal Developers and during the year under consideration, the assessee has sold a piece of land at Cherikhedi for a consideration of Rs.49,86,000/-. The returned of income for the AY 2015- 16 was filed by the assessee on 30.09.2015, declaring a total income at Rs.44,23,530/-. The case was subsequently selected for limited scrutiny assessment on the basis of following reasons:
(1) Large value sale of futures (derivative) in a recognized stock exchange (STT Code 5).
(2) Mismatch in sales turnover reported in Audit Report and ITR.
(3) Large value sale of futures (derivative) in a recognized stock exchange (STT Code 5).
(4) Sale consideration of the property in ITR is less than sale consideration of property reported in AIR.
3.1 Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2), 142(1) and questionnaire in terms of section 142(1)(ii)/(iii) of the Act were issued. In response, assessment proceedings were attended, and submission were made by the counsel of the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, Ld. AO has observed that the assessee had sold a land at Cherikhedi for Consideration of Rs. 49,86,000/-, for which an agreement for sale was executed on 31.03.2014, 4 ITA No.282/RPR/2024 Smt. Rekha Agrawal i.e., in the preceding FY 2013-14 (relevant to AY 2014-15). However, as per AIR information, the sale value of the said property was reported to be for Rs.59,37,000/-. Ld. AO after perusal of the copy of sale deed dated 31.03.2015 submitted by the assessee, had observed that the Fair Market Value of the said property is also Rs.59,37,000/-. However, the sale consideration was taken by the assessee for calculation of capital gain at Rs.49,86,000/- only. To investigate on the issue, the assessee was again show caused and in response, a detailed submission was furnished by the assessee before the Ld. AO, stating that the consideration mentioned in the sale deed for Rs.59,37,000/-, which is reflected in the AIR report also was adopted for stamp duty purpose only on which the sale was registered, however, full value of consideration was only Rs.49,86,000/-, being the actual consideration paid. It was the submission of assessee before the Ld. AO that for sale of the subject land and agreement was executed on 31.03.2014 and an amount of Rs.1.00 Lac through proper banking channel i.e., through NEFT / RTGS was made by the buyer of the land. Ld. AO further explained that the case of the assessee falls within the scope of first proviso to section 50C(1) of the Act. According to which, if the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for transfer of property was not the same then the value adopted by stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purpose of computation of full value of consideration. Such plea of the assessee could not find favour with the Ld. 5 ITA No.282/RPR/2024 Smt. Rekha Agrawal AO, who had while rejecting the contention of assessee had observed as under:
The contention of the assessee is not acceptable due to the following observations:-
(1) "Mere signing/registration of "agreement to sale" cannot be treated as "transfer" of property under consideration. Even by executing the 'agreement to sale', all the rights continued to vest with the assessee.
From a reading of the said "agreement to sale", it is evident that there was no extinguishment of the rights of the assessee on its execution. Therefore, there was no "transfer" the meaning of section 2(47), such transfer taking place only when the "sale agreement" was executed on or before '25th August 2014.
(2) The value or circle rate at the till)e of execution of "agreement to sale"
is of no consequence for the purpose of the application of' 'the provisions of section 50C. The "agreement to sale" may bind the parties' inter-se but does not override the statutory provision as are applicable on the "date of transfer". Section 50C has been introduced to cover those cases where the consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer is less than the value adopted by the stamp duty authority in respect of such transfer and therefore, the case of the assessee is covered by ambit of these provisions.
(3) The Supreme Court, in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., held that the transaction of the nature of 'Sale Agreement transfers do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized as valid mode of transfer of immoveable property and that the Courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. The judgement was passed by a Bench Justice R.V. Raveendran, Justice AK. Patnaik and Justice H.L. Gokhale. 6 ITA No.282/RPR/2024
Smt. Rekha Agrawal Court's Observations:
(a) Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance(deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of sections 54 and 55 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ("the TP Act") and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted under section 53A of the TP Act) for defending possession, According to the TP Act, an Agreement of Sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of TP Act states that sale of immoveable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale is not a document of transfer and does not create any interest or charge on its subject matter.
Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with this whether immovable property can be legally transferred or conveyed through a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell and a Will? Before we embark upon this question, it is very essential to know as to why such kind of indirect sales came into existence. The most dominant reasons for such kind of Indirect Sales were to avoid prohibitions/ conditions regarding certain transfers (as some deeds of conveyance contain the clauses that the property can only be sold after 15 years from the date of construction of some building on the plot/property), to avoid payment of stamp duty and registration charges on deeds of conveyance, to avoid payment of capital gains on transfers, to invest black money etc.
(b) The Hon'ble Apex Court also noted that such kind of Indirect Sales adversely affected the economy, civil society and law and order, Firstly, it enables large scale evasion of income tax, wealth tax, stamp duty and registration fees thereby denying the benefit of such revenue to the Government and Public. Secondly, such transactions enable persons 'With undisclosed wealth/income to invest their black Money and also earn profit/income, thereby encouraging circulation of black Money and corruption.
Also. In India, the 'Property Sale Agreement' comes the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the Registration Act, 1908, and the Transfer of 7 ITA No.282/RPR/2024 Smt. Rekha Agrawal Property Act. This is applicable no matter who the seller is friend, friend, family, acquaintance or complete stranger. A written agreement should be entered into in order to legally establish the authenticity of the property's ownership.
There are several inclusions or what are called clauses in the sale agreement. It will describe the property, include contact details of the seller and the buyer, the negotiated price will be mentioned and also how this payment is being disbursed. The time frame for the payment will be included. There will also be a provision for the payment of stamp duty and for the account of the property title.
As per Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, a contract of sale, that is, an agreement of sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. The Hon'ble Apex Court in many earlier judgments after recognizing various provisions of law has held that a contract of sale at the most creates a fiduciary character of the personal obligation and is annexed to ownership but does not in any way amounts to an interest or easement therein. Therefore, transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transferred. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of sections 54 and 55 of TPA and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property. According to TPA, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of TP Act enacts that sale of immovable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject matter. (4) The assessee's submission that the amendment by way of insertion of provisos brought by the Finance Act, 2016 is curative in nature, then, kindly consider the submission of the assessee that the value adopted for stamp duty purposes was far in excess than fair market of the capital asset and in such a case, the matter may kindly be referred to the Valuation 8 ITA No.282/RPR/2024 Smt. Rekha Agrawal officer as provided u/S50C(2) is not relevant here. Through these amendments the assessee does not get relief since the amendment is introduced only with prospective effect from 1st April 2017. As such, the said provision is not applicable for A.Y.2015-16.
In view of the above, I am of opinion that "full value of consideration" is the value of Rs.59,37,000/- being the value adopted by the stamp duty authority as on the date of transfer which is 31/03/2015 and the same shall be adopted for the purpose of computing capital gain u/s 48.
4. Based on aforesaid observations, Ld. Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs.9,51,000/- and the total income of the assessee calculated at Rs.53,74,530/-.
5. Aggrieved from the aforesaid addition by the Ld. AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who had partly accepted the contentions of the assessee. Based on the fact that the matter was referred to Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) on month prior to the culmination of assessment order. It is observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the DVO's report was not taken into cognizance by the Ld. AO, therefore, after considering the same the addition made by the Ld. AO was scaled down to Rs.99,400/-. 9 ITA No.282/RPR/2024
Smt. Rekha Agrawal
6. Again, aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), wherein the addition made by Ld. AO was partly sustained, assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT, which is under consideration before us.
7. At the outset, Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee pressing ground No. 1 of the appeal had submitted that Ld. AO had erred on facts and in law, while making the impugned addition in the present case by invoking provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act disregarding the fact that agreement of sale of land was executed on 31.03.2014 and part consideration was also received through proper banking channel on the date of agreement, therefore, stamp duty value as on the date of agreement was relevant in view of the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2016, which is curative in nature and therefore, has retrospective effect and Ld. CIT(A) had perpetuated the error committed by Ld. AO, while confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.99,400/- holding the amendment brought by Finance Act, 2016 to be prospective in nature which is unsustainable, hence addition is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. On this issue, to support the factual aspect of the case, Ld. AR drew our attention to page no. 12 of assessee's paper book, consisting of the copy of agreement (Ikrarnama) dated 31.03.2014, wherein at para 2 of the said agreement, it is discernible that the subject land was agreed to be sold by the assessee to Harsh Vatika through its partner, Shri 10 ITA No.282/RPR/2024 Smt. Rekha Agrawal Sharad Goel, the consideration decided was Rs.97.00 lac out of which an amount of Rs.1.00 lac was paid through NEFT/RTGS i.e., through proper banking channel by the buyer of the said land. In order to substantiate further, that the amount was paid through banking channel, Ld. AR drew our attention to page no. 17 of the assessee's paper book showing Bank statement of the assessee maintained with Central Bank of India, Civil Lines, Raipur, wherein the entry of receipt of Rs.1.00 lac, from Shri Sharad Goel was reflecting on 31.03.2014. To strengthen the contention further that the payment of Rs.1.00 lac which was appeared in the agreement is also part of the consideration shown in the registered sale deed, Ld. AR drew our attention to page no. 22 of the assessee's PB consisting of registered sale deed, wherein at page no. 3 displaying the details of sale consideration received by the assessee from the buyer was found to be consisting of the aforesaid NEFT / RTGS payment dated 31.03.2014 for Rs.1 Lac. Therefore, it is undisputedly established that there was an agreement to sale towards which an amount of Rs. 1.00 Lac was paid as advanced by the buyer on 31.03.2014. With such submission, it was the contention of ld. AR that the value adopted for stamp duty purpose as on the date agreement i.e., Rs.49,86,000/- should be considered as actual consideration for calculating capital gain in the case of the assessee. Under such facts and circumstances, it was the submission that, there was no case for the revenue authorities to make an addition in light of first proviso to section 50C. It is the submission that the Ld. CIT(A) had not accepted 11 ITA No.282/RPR/2024 Smt. Rekha Agrawal contention of the assessee on the ground that the amendment was introduced by the Finance Act, 2016 by adding first proviso to section 50C(1), stating that the same cannot be taken to be effective retrospectively. Accordingly, the same cannot be apply in the present case. Apropos, applicability of the first proviso to section 50C(1), Ld. AR strongly placed his reliance on the judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vummudi Amarendran (2020) 429 ITR 97 (Mad), wherein Hon'ble Madras High Court has held as under:
10. Reading of the above proviso would show that the legislature took note of the fact that there are several occasions where the Agreements are entered into between a willing vendor and willing purchaser on an agreed sale consideration, the Agreement is reduced into writing and in many a cases a substantive portion of the sale consideration is given to the vendor as advance on the date of execution of the Agreement. There are other types of transaction where the vendor executes Power of Attorney in favour of the intending purchaser empowering him to sell the property at any time he proposes to do so. In fact, this was also a subject matter of consideration, when the legislature though to introduce the amendment to section 50C of the Act. There may be cases where the sale consideration will be taken as deferred payment subject to certain contingencies. However, the case on hand is very straight forward case, where there is an Agreement for Sale, agreeing to sell the property at Rs. 19 Crores and a sum of Rs. 6 Crores has been received as advance sale consideration. The proviso to Section 50C(1) of the Act deals with cases where the date of the agreement, fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for the transfer of the capital assets 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.
Thus an amendment by insertion of proviso seeks to relieve the assessee from undue hardship.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Calcutta Export Co. [2018] 93 taxmann.com 51/255 Taxman 293/404 ITR 654, considered the question as to whether the amendment made by the Finance Act 2010 to Proviso of Section 12 ITA No.282/RPR/2024 Smt. Rekha Agrawal 40(a)(ia) of the Act is curative in nature and it has to give retrospective operation from the date of insertion of the said proviso i.e., with effect from Assessment Year 2005-06. It was pointed out that the purpose of the amendment made by the Finance Act 2010 is to solve the anomalies with the instrument of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, caused to the bona fide taxpayer. It was further held that the amendment even if not given any operation retrospectively, may not materially to be of consequence to the Revenue when the tax rates are stable and uniform or in cases of big assesses having substantial turnover and equally huge expenses and necessary cushion to absorb the effect; however a marginal and medium tax payer who work at low gross product rate and when expenditure becomes subject matter of an order under section 40(a)(ia) is substantial, can suffer severe adverse consequence if the amendment made in 2010 is not given retrospective operation i.e., from the date of substitution of the provision. Thus, the amendment made by the Finance Act 2010 being curative in nature was held to be retrospective in operation. In the above decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the fact that the statutory amendment was being made to remove undue hardship to the assessee or held to be retrospective.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolkata Export Company took note of the earlier decisions on the same issue in the case of Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 91 Taxman 205/224 ITR 677, Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 3, CIT v. Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. [2002] 123 Taxman 74/255 ITR 117 (SC) and CIT v. Alom Enterprises [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 and held that the new proviso should be given retrospective effect from the insertion on the ground that the proviso was added to remedy unintended consequences and supply an obvious omission. The proviso ensured reasonable interpretation and retrospective effect would serve the object behind the enactment. Thus, by taking note of the above decisions, we have no hesitation to hold that the proviso to Section 50C(1) of the Act should be taken to be retrospective from the date when the proviso exists. The CIT(A) while allowing the assessee's appeal vide order dated 25-7-2019, took note of the submissions made by the assessee wherein they placed reliance on the decision of the Ahmadabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dharamshibhai Sonani v. Asstt. CIT [2016] 75 taxmann.com 141/161 ITD 627, order of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in the case of Income tax Officer v. Modipon Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 360/154 ITD
369. (emphasis supplied by us) 13 ITA No.282/RPR/2024 Smt. Rekha Agrawal
8. Based on the principle of law emanating from the aforesaid judgment, it was the submission of Ld. AR that under the settled principle of law, the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2016, introducing the first proviso to section 50C(1) was for retrospective effect, therefore, the same should be applied in present case of the assessee.
9. Accordingly, it was the prayer that the amount for Rs.99,400/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of her conviction based on observations of the Ld. AO that the amendment introduced by Finance Bill, 2016 is effective prospectively from 01.04.2017, therefore, not applicable for the AY 2015-16 relevant for the present case, was bereft of merits and against the interpretation drawn by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the aforesaid case (supra), therefore, the same is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.99,400/- deserved to be set aside also the addition made by Ld. AO shall be deleted.
10. Ld. Sr. DR on the other hand, vehemently supported the order of authorities below.
14 ITA No.282/RPR/2024
Smt. Rekha Agrawal
11. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and case laws relied upon by the Ld. AR. In present case, assessee's plea that amendment in section 50C(1), wherein first proviso was introduced by the Finance Act, 2016 stating that the same is vacated from 01.04.2017 was interpreted by the Hon'ble Madras High Court (supra), wherein it has categorically observed that "We have no hesitation to hold on proviso to section 50C(1) of the Act should be taken to be retrospective effect from the date with the proviso exists". Such analogy has been drawn by the Hon'ble Madras High Court while dealing with the case of an assessee for the AY 2014-15, which pertains to an AY falling prior to the date of amendment i.e., from 01.04.2017. This issue was further dealt with by the coordinate benches of this tribunal, wherein their finding on the issues reads as under:
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Thomson Press (India) Ltd.
(2023) 202 ITD 149 (Del) in ITA No. 9342/Del/2019, AY 2014-15;
The above proviso was inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2017. Therefore, the question that has to be decided is as to whether the above amendment is prospective in nature i.e., will be applicable from A.Y. 2017-18 or is retrospective in nature being curative in nature. We find identical issue had come up before the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dharamshibhai Sonani versus ACIT (supra) where it has been held that amendment to section 50C introduced by the Finance Act, 2016 for determining full value of consideration in the case of involved property is curative in nature and will apply retrospectively. We find following the above decision, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul G: Patel vs. DCIT, ITA No.2767/Ahd/2016, order 15 ITA No.282/RPR/2024 Smt. Rekha Agrawal dated 26th September, 2018 has held that the proviso to section 50C(1) introduced by the Finance Act, 2016 can be construed as clarificatory in nature and can be applied on pending matters. The various other decisions relied on by the Id. counsel for the assessee also support the case of the assessee that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount\of consideration and the date of registration regarding the transfer of the capital asset in question are not the same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of the agreement is to be taken for the purpose of full value of consideration. I, therefore;' accept the argument of the Id. counsel for the assessee in principle and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify necessary facts and decide the issue in the light of my above observation directing to adopt the circle rate on the date of agreement to sell in order to compute the consequential capita, gain.
Bellandur Chikkagurappa Jayaramareddy vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2022) 193 ITD 757 (Bang) 827 in ITA No. 1322/Bang/2019, AY 2014-15;
48. There was payment of Rs.2,50,00,000 on 23.11.2011 by cheque No.259865 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Sarakki Branch, Bangalore. Being so, the argument of the ld. DR is that MoU is not suggesting any payment so as to apply the proviso to section 50C, thus it is deemed retrospective in nature. In our opinion, as held by the Madras High Court in the case of Vummudi Amarendran (supra), proviso to section 50C(1) is retrospective in nature applicable from AY 2014-15. Further part of the consideration has already been passed through MoU as enumerated above. It cannot be said that no consideration is paid on the date of MoU. This finding of the lower authorities is not proper. Accordingly, we hold that proviso to section 50C(1) by the Finance Act, 2016 is retrospective and also the assessee proved that the 2nd proviso to section 50C(1) is satisfied since the assessee has paid a part of sale consideration on the date 16 ITA No.282/RPR/2024 Smt. Rekha Agrawal of such MoU dated 8.4.2013. In view of this, we hold that the guidance value has to be computed as prevailing on the date of MoU dated 8.4.2013.
12. We, thus, in terms of aforesaid decision, respectfully following the same, are of the considered view that first proviso to section 50C(1) deemed to be retrospective in nature and, therefore, benefit of the same shall be available to the assessee for the AY 2015-16 i.e., in the present case. Accordingly, the decision of Ld. CIT(A) accepting the contention of Ld. AO that the amendment introduced in section 50C(1) in Finance Act, 2016 is effective prospectively is found to be contrary to the analogy drawn by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vummudi Amarendran (supra), therefore, we are unable to concur with the same, accordingly the order of Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be set aside. Further, we may herein observe that since the stamp duty valuation of the subject land as on the date of agreement i.e., 31.03.2014 was Rs.49,86,000/- which was also the actual consideration received by the assessee as emanating from the assessee's reply before the Ld. AO, which was not disputed by the revenue, therefore, we direct the Ld. AO to vacate the addition, and recompute the capital gain adopting the full value of consideration being the value of land for stamp duty purpose as on the date of agreement to sale. Resultantly, ground no. 1 of the assessee stands allowed. 17 ITA No.282/RPR/2024
Smt. Rekha Agrawal
13. Since, we have vacated the addition made by the Ld. AO while deciding ground no. 1 of the present appeal, therefore, the other contention raised by the Ld. AR in ground no. 2 of the present appeal does not require any separate adjudication. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observation.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08/07/2024.
Sd/- Sd/-
(RAVISH SOOD) (ARUN KHODPIA)
ाियक सद / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
रायपुर/Raipur; िदनां क Dated 08/07/2024
Vaibhav Shrivastav
आदे श की ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant-
2. थ / The Respondent-
3. आयकर आयु (अपील) / The CIT(A),
4. आयकर आयु / CIT
5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
// स या पत त True copy //
आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER,
(Assistant Registrar)
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ITAT, Raipur