Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Pr. CIT has erred in invoking provisions of section 263 without considering the fact that the assessing officer had passed the original order u/s 143(3) after making proper inquiries, investigation and examinations.

3. Without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal, the Pr. CIT has erred in not considering the fact that the date of agreement fixing the value of the asset was prior to the date of registration of such transfer and payment was received by cheque, where the value for the purpose of payment of stamp duty on the date of agreement was not above the full value of consideration received, so provision of section 43CA were not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.

Again further referring to para 6.2 of the impugned order, the Ld. DR submits that during the course of proceedings u/s 263, the assessee was asked by the Pr. CIT to establish with supporting documentary evidence that it received part payments from the said parties to whom it sold the flats/shops in contravention of section 43CA. However, in response to it, the assessee submitted copies of payment receipts issued to the flat/shop buyers, but these did not properly show the acknowledgement by the said parties. It is mentioned by the Ld. DR that the assessee failed to produce before the Pr. CIT M/s Mangalam Developers the agreements for sale except that of Sunita S. Ghorpode, although specifically asked for. For want of evidence of receipt of part payment from the said flat/shop purchasers, the provision of section 43CA is applicable in the instant case.

4. Assessed u/s. 143(3) (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 accordingly. Credit given for pre-paid taxes. Charged interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D as applicable. Issued Demand notice / refund order accordingly."

6.2 Let us now turn to section 43CA of the Act. The Finance Act, 2013 inserted section 43CA to provide that where the consideration for the transfer of an asset (other than capital asset), being land or building or both, is less than the stamp duty value, the value so adopted or assessed or assessable shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration for the purposes of computing income under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". The Finance Act, 2013 has also provided that where the date of an agreement fixing the value of consideration for the transfer of the asset and the date of registration of the transfer of the asset are not the same, the stamp M/s Mangalam Developers duty value may be taken as on the date of the agreement for the transfer and not as on the date of registration for such transfer.

We find that the AO in the instant case has not examined the above provisions of the Act. This is evident from the documents leading to the assessment order and also from the assessment order extracted above. Tellingly, therefore the present case is distinguishable from the case-laws relied by the Ld. counsel as narrated here-in-before.

6.3 As mentioned earlier, the Pr. CIT has specifically mentioned at para 6.2 of the impugned order that in response to a query raised by him to establish with supporting documentary evidence that it received part payments from the said parties to whom it sold the flats/shops in contravention of section 43CA, the assessee failed to produce the agreements for sale except the one in the case of Sunita S. Ghorpode. Therefore, specifically he directed the AO to verify the documents and ascertain whether the assessee has received any amount against the sale of said flats in the earlier year, in which the assessee claims to have issued the allotment letter and received the payment and to ascertain whether provisions of section 43CA are applicable or not.