Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a doctor (Gynecologist) by profession and has been running a hospital in Ahmedabad. The assessee had purchased an immovable property being sub-plot No. A/23 admeasuring 1371 sq.mtrs along with 194.07 sq.mtrs undivided share in the land used for internal common roads and common plots. Thus, the plot area has been worked out to 1565 sq. mtrs located in the scheme known as "Gala Auram". The said plot has been purchased by the assessee through registered sale deed bearing No.AHD-04-PLD/3042 of 2014 dated 02.05.2014 for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,42,27,200/-. The jantri value as per the stamp duty authority has been worked out to Rs.2,59,34,694/- as the assessee has paid the stamp duty of Rs.12,70,800/- on the jantri value. Thus, there has been difference of Rs.1,17,07,495/- between the jantri value of Rs,2,59,34,694/- and the apparent sale consideration of Rs. 1,42,27,200/-. The Assessing Officer ought to have taxed this difference as income by virtue of the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act. It appears that this omission on the part of the A.O. has resulted in passing an erroneous assessment order which also appeared to be prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. It is also noticed that the assessee had furnished a copy of sale agreement executed on 07.07.2010 wherein he has agreed for the sale consideration of Rs.1,42,27,200/-. Further, he was required to deduct the tax at source as per the provisions of section 194-IA of the Act and mentioned such Bansibhai Vs. PCIT] A.Y. 2015-16 -3- deduction of tax in the said sale agreement. However, surprisingly, it has also been noticed that there was no provision of section 194IA of the Act existed as on the date of making the sale agreement i.e. on 07.07.2010 as the said provision has been brought in the Statute Book w.e.f. 01.03.2013. Further, it has also been noticed that the sale agreement was made on the stamp paper of Rs.100/- and was not registered before the concerned registering authority. Thus, it is noticed that this sale agreement so made and produced in the assessment proceedings was an afterthought so that the application of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) be avoided in his case. Further, it has been noticed that the payments for the purchase of the said house property had been made from the overdraft account No.474 maintained with Bank of Baroda and the assessee had charged interest of Rs.2,20,524/- in the profit & loss account which was otherwise not to be allowed as business expenditure. However, while making the assessment order, the A.O. has allowed the interest of Rs.2,20,524/- as Revenue expenses (which were those of personal nature- for the purchase of house property- a personal asset). Thus, it appeared that there was an error on the part of A.O. which resulted in passing an erroneous assessment order that appeared to be prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.