Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5) The assessee craves leave to add/alter any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing."

3. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case pertaining to the aforesaid issue are that the assessee is a firm and for the year under consideration filed its return of income on 07/10/2016 declaring a total income of ₹ 96,74,010. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny under section 147 of the Act on the basis of the information that as per the agreement registered, the sale value of the property is ₹ 1,87,02,500, whereas the market value as per the Stamp Duty Authority is ₹ 1,94,40,006. Therefore, provision of section 50C/43CA/56(2)(vii) of the Act is attracted in this case on an amount of ₹ 7,37,505, being the difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value of the Aaeshka Riddhi Realty said property. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked regarding the aforesaid difference. In response to the notice issued, the assessee submitted its written submission along with financial statements, computation of income, audit report, the copy of the acknowledgement of ITR filed in response to the notice issued under section 148, Form No. 26AS, a copy of sale deed, and ledger account. During the assessment proceedings, the notice was issued to the assessee to show cause as to why the provisions of section 43CA of the Act be not applied and the amount of ₹ 7,37,505 in respect of the sale of immovable property be not added to the total income of the assessee. In the absence of any response from the assessee with respect to the show cause notice, the Assessing Officer ("AO") vide order dated 16/05/2023 passed under section 147 r/w 144B of the Act held that the provisions of section 43CA of the Act are attracted in respect of the amount of ₹ 7,37,505 being the difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value of the said property.

4. The learned CIT(A), vide ex parteimpugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and confirmed the addition of ₹ 7,37,505 made by the AO by applying the provisions of section 43CA of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

5. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to note the relevant provisions of section 43CA of the Act, as existing during the year under consideration, and the same reads as follows: -

"Special provision for full value of consideration for transfer of assets other than capital assets in certain cases.

8. Further, vide Finance Act 2020, w.e.f. 01/04/2021, the first proviso to section 43CA(1) of the Act was again amended, and the tolerance limit was increased from 5% to 10% of the consideration. Accordingly, it is evident that as per the amended provisions of section 43CA(1) of the Act, since the excess of stamp duty value over the sale consideration, i.e. ₹ 7,37,505 is less than the 5% of the sale consideration, i.e. ₹ 9,35,125, therefore the provisions of section 43CA of the Act are not applicable. As per the learned DR, the amendment mentioned above does not apply to the year under consideration, i.e. the assessment year 2016-17 and is prospective in its application.

10. We further find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in Karb Associates (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT,in IT Appeal No. 1941/Kol/2019, vide order Aaeshka Riddhi Realty dated 25/08/2021, following the aforementioned decision in Maria Fernandes Cheryl (supra), observed as follows: -

"As has been aptly explained above, the rational for holding newly inserted proviso to sub-section (1) to section 50C of the Act as curative in nature, hence, having retrospective application, the same analogy would apply to the provisions of section 43CA of the Act. Both the sections are similarly worded except that both the sections have application on different sets of assessee. As has been pointed earlier, section 43CA gets attracted where the consideration received or accrues as a result of transfer of an asset (other than a capital asset) being land or building or both. Whereas, provisions of section 50C operates where the consideration received or accrues as a result of transfer of a capital asset being land or building or both. Both the sections induce deeming fiction to substitute actual sale consideration with notional value of asset based on Stamp Duty valuation. Further, a perusal of Circular 8 of 2018 (supra), would show that identical reasons have been given in Para 16 for 'Rationalization of Sections 43CA and 50C'. The proviso has been inserted and subsequently tolerance band limit has been enhanced to mitigate hardship of genuine transactions in the real estate sector. Ergo, in the light of reasoning given for insertion of the proviso and exposition by the Tribunal for retrospective application of the said proviso, I have no hesitation in holding that the proviso to sub-section (1) to section 43CA and the subsequent amendment thereto relates back to the date on which the said section was made effective i.e. 01/4/2014."