SHRI SATENDRA KOUSHIK,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, JHUNJHUNU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 392/JPR/2019Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 April 2019AY 2015-167 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii) was introduced to counter evasion and prevent laundering of unaccounted income, extending the tax net to transactions in kind. However, the intent was not to tax transactions in the normal course of business or trade, the profits of which are taxable under a specific head of income. The definition of 'property' under this section was amended to apply to capital assets, excluding stock-in-trade, raw material, and consumable stores. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had not properly appreciated the provisions concerning land purchased as stock-in-trade. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after giving the assessee due opportunity of hearing. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in the real estate business, purchased a piece of land in Assessment Year 2015-16. The registered purchase deed showed a total registry value of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The assessee issued a cheque of Rs. 15 lakhs to the seller, which was not realized, and also paid Rs. 3 lakhs in cash, showing the balance Rs. 12 lakhs as a liability. The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, adding the difference between the stamp duty value and the consideration as deemed income, amounting to Rs. 34,23,542/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the AO's action. The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 34,23,542/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of alleged suppression of purchase price of land is justified, considering the land was purchased as stock-in-trade and not a capital asset? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii)). - Assessee's contention: Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) is not attracted as the land is stock-in-trade and not a capital asset. The lower authorities erred in not considering this and in adopting a purchase price higher than the registry value, relying on DLC value and ignoring pending litigation affecting market value. - Revenue's contention: Relied on the orders of the authorities below.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii),Section 143(3),Section 139(1),Section 50C,Section 155

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES “SMC”, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Id.AR
For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena, JCIT, Id.DR
Hearing: 15/04/2019Pronounced: 23/04/2019

vkns'k@ ORDER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.CIT(A), 4, Jaipur dated 7-2-2019 for the A.Y. 2015-16 in the matter of an assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act).

2.

Following grounds have been taken by the assessee:-

1.

That on the law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned lower authorities grossly erred in making an addition of Rs.34,23,542/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the I.T. Act on account of suppression of purchase price of land in the hands of the assessee appellant. 1.1 That on the law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned lower authorities grossly erred in not considering the submissions made by the assessee appellant 2 Satendra Koushik that the said purchase is stock-in-trade and is not a capital asset and hence provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) are not attracted, has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without even bothering to look at the statutory provision. 1.2 That the learned lower authorities grossly erred in adopting the total purchase price at Rs.49,23,542/- as against total registry value of Rs.15,00,000/- of the land purchased by the assessee appellant. 1.3 That the learned lower authorities grossly erred in relying upon the DLC value adopted by the sub-registrar and in ignoring the facts of the instant case. 1.4 That the learned lower authorities grossly erred in not considering the fact that some litigation is pending in the civil court with relates to the property and the property was under heavy dispute therefore purchased under the actual market value but the learned lower authorities grossly erred in taking it otherwise.

2. The appellant craves to add, alter, modify or amend any ground on or before the date of hearing.

3.

Rival contentions have been heard and record perused.

4.

The facts in brief are that the assessee is engaged in real estate business and the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act for the A.Y 2015-16 was filed on 26.3.2016 declaring total income at Rs.8,16,670/-.

In the year under consideration the appellant assessee purchase a piece of land by registered purchase deed and a cheque of Rs. 15 lakhs was issued to the seller, which was not realized till date and payment was not made by the assessee. During the assessment proceedings the AO observed that the assessee has shown the purchase of land in trading account. The assessee appellant has also paid Rs. 3 lakh to the seller and shown the balance of Rs. 12 lakhs in the liability side of balance sheet. the full value of sale consideration as adopted by the stamp authority and added the difference amount Rs. 34,23,542/- in the hand of assessee appellant as deemed income of the assessee u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act

5.

By the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by observing that the property is defined in very specific way in the definition by mentioning “ property “, which means both agricultural land and non-agricultural land. Accordingly, the order passed by the AO was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).

6.

The ld. AR vehemently argued that the appellant assessee is engaged in real estate business in Jhunujhunu District and regularly deals in sale and purchase of lands and buildings and hence provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) are itself not applicable in the instant case as the said provision would come into consideration only in case of purchase of capital asset, which is not the case in the instant case. He also read the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, which extracted as under:-

(vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after the 1st day of October, 2009 [ but before the 1st day of April, 2017]- (a) …………………………………………. (b) Any immovable property,- (i) without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property;

4 Satendra Koushik (ii) for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration: Provided that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement may be taken for the purposes of this sub-clause: Provided further that the said proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration referred to therein, or a part thereof, has been paid by any mode other than cash on or before the date of the agreement for the transfer of such immovable property;] (c )…………………………………………………. (i)…………………………………………………. (ii)………………………………………………….. Provided that where the stamp duty value of immovable property as referred to in sub-clause (b) is disputed by the assessee on grounds mentioned in sub-sectio (2) of section 50C, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of such property to a Valuation Officer, and the provisions of section 50C and sub-section (15) of section 155 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the stamp duty value of such property for the purpose of sub-clause (b) as they apply for valuation of capital asset under those sections: Provided further that this clause shall not apply to any sum (a)……………. (b)……………, or ( c)……………., or (d)…………….., or (e ) to (h)…………………. Explanation- For the purposes of this clause,- (a) “ assessable” shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Explanation 2 to sub-section(2) of section 50C:

5 Satendra Koushik (b) “ fair markert value” of a property, other than an immovable property, means the value determined in accordance with the method as may be prescribed, (c) …………. (d) “ property” [ means the following capital asset of the assessee, namely:- (i) Immovable property being land or building or both; (ii) Shares and securities; (iii) Jewellery; (iv) archeological collections; (v) drawings; (vi) paintings; (vii) sculptures; (viii) any work of art; [ or] (ix) bullion ( e ) ………… (e) “ stamp duty value” means the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of the Central Government or a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of an immovable property;] 7. As per the ld. AR, the intent is not to tax the transactions entered into the normal course of business or trade, the profits of which are taxable under specific head of income. Our attention was invited to the definition of property, which has been amended to provide that section 56(2)(vii) will have application to the ‘ property’ which is in the nature of a capital asset of the recipient and therefore would not apply to stock-in- trade, raw material and consumable stores of any business of such recipient. laundering of unaccounted income by the AO, hence invocation of provision of sec. 56(2)(vii) is bad in law. He contended that the AO has not bothered to refer the matter to the DVO, before invoking the provision.

9.

On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

10.

I have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. The provisions of section 56(2)(vii) were introduced as a counter evasion mechanism to prevent laundering of unaccounted income. The provisions were intended to extent the tax net to such transactions in kind. The intent is not to tax the transactions entered into in the normal course of business or trade, the profits of which are taxable under specific head of income. Therefore, the definition of property has been amended to provide that section 56(2)(vii) will have application to the ‘property’ which is in the nature of a capital asset of the recipient and therefore would not apply to stock-in-trade, raw material and consumable stores of any business of such recipient.

However, a property is defined in a very specific way, which includes agricultural and non-agricultural land or both. It appears that the lower authorities have not properly appreciated the relevant provisions of the Act with regard to the land purchased by the assessee, which is part of stock-in-trade. In the substantial interest of justice, we restore the matter opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

11.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on …23rd ……April, 2019.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii)

All 128 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →