Case Law Details
Siraj Ahmed Jamalbhai Bora Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Issue in dispute had been directly addressed by the Co-ordinate Bench decision of Ranchi Tribunal which had been rightly relied upon by the ld. AR before us in the case of Bajrang Lal Naredi vs ITO in ITA No. 327/Ran/2018 for A.Y.2014-15 dated 20/01/2020, wherein the stamp duty value on the date of registration of the property on 17/06/2013 for Rs.22,60,000/-, whereas the stamp duty value at the time of agreement entered into in FY 2011-12 was Rs.18,89,350/- as against the actual consideration paid of Rs.9,10,000/-. The ld. AO in that case made an addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act in the hands of that assessee being a purchaser to the extent of Rs.9,79,350/- (18,89,350 – Rs.9,10,000/-) by applying the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. When the matter travelled to Ranchi Tribunal, the Tribunal held as under:-
“6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions on the issue. In the instant appeal, the applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2013 and applicable to AY 2014-15 in question. On a perusal of pre-amended provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, we gather that where an individual or HUF receives from any person any immovable property without consideration, the provisions of pre- amended Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act would apply. The aforesaid provisions was however substituted by Finance Act, 2013 and made applicable to AY 2014-15 onwards. As per the amended provisions, the scope of substituted provision was expanded to cover purchase of immovable property for inadequate consideration as well. It is alleged on behalf of the Revenue that the amended provision will apply in view of the fact that registration has been carried out during the FY 2013-14 concerning AY 2014-15 where the amended law came into force. The assessee, on the other hand, seeks to claim that his case would be covered by pre-amended provision in view of the fact that agreement for purchase of the property was entered into with the prospective seller in FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13 at which time the new law did not come into play. It was claimed that the purchase consideration was duly paid at the time of agreement in FY 2011-12 and the purchase was de facto completed except for the formality of registration. It was thus submitted that the transactions entered prior to the FY 2013-14 would be governed by the pre-amended provision which triggers the applicability of such provision only where there is a total lack of consideration and does not cover a case of inadequacy in purchase consideration.
7. We find merit in such plea advanced on behalf of the assessee. It is not in dispute that purchase transactions of immovable property were carried out in FY 2011-12 for which full consideration was also parted with the seller. Mere registration at later date would not cover a transaction already executed in the earlier years and substantial obligations have already been discharged and a substantive right has accrued to the assessee therefrom. The pre-amended provisions will thus apply and therefore the Revenue is debarred to cover the transactions where inadequacy in purchase consideration is alleged. We thus find merit in the issue raised on behalf of the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) is accordingly set aside and the AO is directed to delete the additions made under s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and restore the position claimed by the assessee.”
We find that this Ranchi Tribunal’s decision was confronted with the ld. DR, he could not rebut the same and could not provide any other contrary decision before us at the time of hearing. We find that the facts prevailing in Ranchi’s Tribunal’s case are exactly the same with that of the facts of the instant appeal before us. Hence, the decision rendered thereon would apply mutatis mutandis to the issue in dispute before us. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act could not be made applicable in the hands of the assessee for the assessment year under appeal in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case before us.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
