Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a NIL return for AY 2017-18. Its case was reopened under Section 148 due to information regarding an undervalued sale of immovable property, leading to an addition of Rs. 28,36,680/- under Section 43CA for the difference between stamp duty valuation and sale consideration. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, deleting Rs. 2,02,000/-, prompting the assessee to appeal further.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee, as one of 20 landowners in a Joint Development Agreement (JDA), was entitled to receive only 1% of the total realization, while the collective landowners' share was 22%. Consequently, the addition under Section 43CA was restricted to 1% of the initial difference, amounting to Rs. 28,367/-, and the orders of lower authorities were set aside with this direction.
Key Issues
Whether the addition under Section 43CA for the difference between stamp duty valuation and sale consideration of immovable property should be restricted based on the assessee's actual share in the Joint Development Agreement.
Sections Cited
250, 148, 143(2), 142(1), 147, 144B, 43CA
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rishi Tradecom Pvt. Ltd.……………………………………….……….……Appellant 1, Old Court House Corner Tobacco House, 1st Floor, Room No.104, Kol-700001. [PAN: AAFCR4754E] vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Kolkata..………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate & Nandini Sureka, Adv., appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : August 25, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : November 11, 2025 ORDER
Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.04.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘CIT(A)’] passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017–18.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 declaring total income Rs.Nil. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 of the Act and subsequent notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued as the Assessing Officer received information that the assessee has sold immovable property by adopting value lower than stamp valuation authority. Accordingly, assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B was passed by making an addition of Rs.28,36,680/- u/s 43CA of the Act being the
Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been partly allowed with a direction to the Assessing Officer to delete Rs.2,02,000/-.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before us. The ld. AR challenges the very impugned order thereby submitting that the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of alleged difference between stamp duty valuation and sale consideration of the immovable property ignoring the fact that the assessee company entered into Joint Development Agreement with Swarna Infrastructure & Builders Private Limited and the assessee company owned the land with other 19 companies, who had appointed the developer SIBPL and grant the developer the exclusive rights and authority to develop the premises owned by the owner of the land and construct the building complex thereon and to market the same for mutual benefit as evident from copy of Joint Development Agreement dated 25.06.2012. The ld. AR further submitted that as per the said Joint Development Agreement dated 25.06.2012, all land owners in aggregate shall receive 22% of the revenue and the developer i.e., SIBPL shall receive 78% of the revenue as defined in point no. 1 (i) of the Joint Agreement Deed dated 25.06.2012. His submission is that the said Joint Development Agreement was revised and the assessee entered in to Joint Development Agreement dated 16.09.2013 wherein also it was mentioned that the owners shall be entitled to receive 22% in aggregate of the total realization. The ld. AR also submitted that it is clear that assessee company was entitled to receive only 1% of total consideration received from sale of property. His prayed that the addition may be Rishi Tradecom Pvt. Ltd restricted to Rs. 28,367/-. (1% of the said difference of Rs.28,36,680/-) and prayed that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer with this direction.
Contrary to that, the ld. DR supports the impugned order.
Upon hearing submission of the counsels of the respective parties and on perusal of the material available on record, we find that the assessee company is engaged in the business of real estate and the assessee company entered into Joint Development Agreement with Swarna Infrastructure & Builders Private Limited and the assessee company owned the land with other 19 companies. It is pertinent to mention here that the ld. CIT(A) in his order has mentioned the extract of JDA in which it appears that the assessee was entitled to receive 1% of the total realisation which is as under:
Rishi Tradecom Pvt. Ltd 6.1 We also find that the assessee is in Serial No.5 of the above chart. In view of the above discussion, we note that the difference between the sale consideration of the immovable property as per registered Sale Deed as against the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority was Rs.28,36,680/- is hereby restricted to Rs.28,367/-. (1% of the said difference of Rs.28,36,680/-). Accordingly, by setting aside the orders of both the lower authorities, we remit the appeal of the assessee to file of the Assessing Officer with a direction that the addition shall be restrict to Rs.28,367/- (1% of the addition of Rs.28,36,680/-).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Kolkata, the 11th November, 2025.