Case Law Details
ACIT Vs Sri Anala Anjibabu (ITAT Visakhapatnam)
The issue under consideration is whether provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) are applicable on difference between consideration paid for purchase of property and SRO value as on date of agreement?
ITAT states that the decision relied upon by the assessee in the case of D.S.N.Malleswara Rao cited supra which is related to the A.Y.2006-07 which is prior to the insertion of section 56(2)(vii)(b) and the same has no relevance in the instant case. However in the cited case of D.S.N.Malleswara Rao also the Hon’ble ITAT held that the law as applicable as on the date of agreement required to be applied for taxing the income. The department has not made out any case of application of 56(2)(vii)(b) and since the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) were not available in the statute as on the date of entering into the agreement, following the reasoning given in the case of M.Siva Parvathi & Others (supra), the same cannot be made applicable to the assessee. The department has not brought any evidence to show that there was extra consideration paid by the assessee over and above the sale agreement or sale deed. No other case law of any high court supporting the contention of the department was brought to our notice by the Ld.DR. Therefore, ITAT hold that the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly applied the decision of this Tribunal in the assessee’s case and deleted the addition. Hence, ITAT do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
There was a delay of 6 days in filing the appeal by the department. The Assessing Officer (AO) has filed the affidavit explaining the reasons for delay in filing the appeal and requested to condone the delay. After hearing both the parties, the delay is condoned.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
