Vimla Tripathi Vs ITO (ITAT Lucknow)
In the matter above mentioned ITAT deleted the addition made by the AO after observing that the provision invoked by the AO was introduced introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2014 only, whereas the assessee had entered into the transaction on 01.08.2012.
Assessee filed her return at Rs.1,93,140/-. AO noticed that assessee had purchased an agricultural land admeasuring 0.6200 hectare on 01.08.2012, jointly with her husband, for a consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- for which market value of the property was taken at Rs. 71,30,000/- for the stamp duty purpose. Case was reopened. AO issued notice u/s 142 (1) when there is no response to notice u/s 148. The assessee furnished her reply and filed requisite details. AO noticed that the difference between the Fair Market Value and the consideration paid by the assessee was Rs.59,30,000/- (Rs.71,30,000 – Rs.12,00,000). Since the property was purchased by the assessee jointly, half the amount of difference, i.e. Rs.29,65,00/- (Rs.59,30,000/2) was treated as deemed income of the assessee u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). Appeal before CIT (A) was dismissed.
Before ITAT it was submitted by assessee that AO could not have legally invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii), as this section was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2014 only, whereas the assessee had entered into the transaction on 01.08.2012. 56(2)(vii)(b) only covers cases of immoveable property, but do not cover agricultural land. Assessee paid consideration of 6 Lakh, so it is not incorrect to say that there is no consideration at all. On the other hand, revenue supported orders of lower authorities.
