Monica Bibbly Sood Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh)
The ITAT, Chandigarh Bench held that where agreement to sell precedes registration and part consideration is received through banking channels, the stamp duty value as on the date of agreement—and not the registration date—must be adopted for s.50C purposes.
In this case, the assessee sold an industrial shed for ₹4.80 crore. Though registration took place in May 2012, a binding agreement was executed in March 2012, and the assessee had already received over ₹1.80 crore via account-payee cheques on 12.03.2012 & 15.03.2012. Despite satisfying both 1st & 2nd provisos to s.50C, the AO applied stamp value as on the registration date and made an addition of ₹17.80 lakh, which was upheld by CIT(A).
The Tribunal held this approach to be legally flawed, reiterating that the provisos—now held to be retrospective—exist to prevent artificial inflation of capital gains where consideration is already fixed and partly received through banking modes. The relevant date for stamp valuation is the agreement date (12.03.2012).
Accordingly, the impugned orders were set aside. The AO was directed to ascertain stamp value as on the agreement date, and only if it exceeds ₹4.80 crore, to make a DVO reference. Till then, the addition was deleted and the appeal was allowed
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH
