Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee and perused the material available on record. The ld. DR for the Revenue submits that assessee has sold the different units/flats in less than the market value or the valuation of Stamp Duty Valuation Authorities. The assessee has not given any explanation as to why, the said units were sold below the market value/stamp duty valuation except submitting that section 43CA is applicable from 01.04.2014 and therefore, not applicable for AY 2012-13. It is further submitted that during the relevant period, the assessee developed a property in Mazgaon wherein lease holding right for residual period was bought by the assessee in Public auction from Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). The Assessing Officer on the basis of information from data base of Assessee Information Report (AIR) dated 11.07.2014, received from the office of Central Information Bureau that assessee sold one flat at Rs. 19,65,000/- whereas Stamp Duty Authority valuation was for Rs. 35,71,000/-. The assessee was asked to furnish the details of various flat sold by the assessee. From the details supplied by assessee, the assessee was asked to substantiate with evidentiary proof and the reasons for selling the flat less than the Stamp Duty Authority valuation. The assessee instead of giving any documentary evidence and to substantiate the claim contended that section 43CA had been inserted from 01.04.2014, therefore, the provision is not applicable to the relevant AY. Therefore, the Assessing Officer added the difference stamp duty authority valuation and sale price to the total income of the assessee. In support of his submission, the ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the decision of CIT vs. Shatrunjay Diamonds [2003] 128 TAXMAN 759 (BOM.).

5. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We have noted that the Assessing Officer made the addition after taking his view that the assessee has sold a flat in less than value of stamp duty authority valuation. The Assessing Officer in paragraph-9 of his order has tabulated the difference of sale value and the stamp duty authority valuation. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee specifically urged that the assessee is a builder and the flat/units constructed by builder are his stock-in-trade and not capital asset. Section 50C of the Act applies to capital, where the capital is transferred. There is no dispute that assessee is a developer/builder. Further, there is no dispute that assessee constructed the said flats, which were shown as stock-in- trade. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Neelkamal Realtors & Erectors India (P.) Ltd.(supra) held that section 43CA has been introduced in the Act from 01.04.2014 which governs taking of full value of consideration for transfer of assets other than capital assets on the basis of stamp duty valuation. This section 43CA finds a place as a part of Chapter-IV-D-Profits and gains of business or profession. Therefore, with effect from 1-4-2014 the stamp duty valuation of assets sold could be taken as full value of consideration. Further, section 50C Act has no application to value stock-in-trade is also a view taken by in CIT v. Ken Construction and Colonizers (P.) Ltd. [2002] 208 Taxman 478/20 taxmann.com 381 (All.). The decision rendered by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court is directly applicable on the fact of present case. Therefore, we do not find any reason to deviate from the finding of ld. CIT(A). The case law relied by ld. DR in CIT vs Shatrunjay Diamonds (supra) are not applicable on the facts of the present case. The said case is relates to section 40A(2), which deals with the excessive or unreasonable payments made to related parties in business dealings. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by Revenue are dismissed.