Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a developer, received an addition of Rs. 4,86,49,250/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) by the AO for AY 2016-17. This stemmed from a property purchase where the AO adopted the stamp duty value as of the registration date (06.02.2016) at Rs. 19,85,97,000/-, while the assessee claimed an unregistered agreement from 12.08.1997 with an initial payment on 08.01.1997, and the consideration was ultimately Rs. 72.00 lakh. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, applying the provisos to section 56(2)(vii)(b) and considering the agreement date of 12.08.1997.
Held
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that since a part of the consideration was paid through banking channels on 08.01.1997 against an agreement dated 12.08.1997, the first and second provisos to section 56(2)(vii)(b) are applicable. Consequently, the stamp duty value as on 12.08.1997 (Rs. 63,88,000/-) should be adopted, which is less than the total consideration paid, thus nullifying the addition made by the AO. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by adopting the stamp duty valuation on the date of registration (06.02.2016) rather than the date of the original agreement (12.08.1997) is sustainable, given part consideration was paid earlier through banking channels and the agreement was later registered under an Amnesty Scheme.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 147, Section 144B, Section 143(1), Section 143(2), Section 142(1), Section 56(2)(vii)(b), Section 50C, Section 263
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES B, PUNE
Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeal at the instance of Revenue is directed against the order framed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Pune-12, dated 26.02.2024 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’) which inturn is arising out of the Assessment Order dated 20.09.2021 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of Developer. For the A.Y. 2016- 17, e-return was filed on 17.10.2016 declaring income of Rs.67,50,160/-. Case processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, based on the information that assessee along with 5 other persons have entered into an Agreement to purchase an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.72.00 lakh which Rajendra Rasiklal Shah was registered under Amnesty Scheme on 06.02.2016, the value of the property as on 06.02.2016 as per Circle/Guidelines Rates for Stamp Duty purpose was Rs.19,85,97,000/-. Since the assessee had paid only Rs.10.00 lakh for his share of 25% in the property, ld. AO was of the view that in terms of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act an amount of Rs.4,96,49,250/- deserves to be added in the hands of assessee. In the course of assessment proceedings which was carried out after validly serving notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, the assessee claimed that on 12.08.1997 unregistered agreement was entered into with the seller of the property and part consideration was paid through banking channel but the balance amount was payable since some contractual obligations on part of the seller regarding updation of land revenue records with names of original owners and obtaining relevant permissions were to be carried out. The assessee got the possession of the land on 25.01.2001. Finally, the contractual obligations by seller were completed in the year 2014 but till that time as the assessee had not paid the remaining consideration in the year 1997, the purchase consideration was revised to Rs.72.00 lakh and the same was paid through banking channel on the dates falling during the period 04.10.2014 to 09.09.2015. Based on these facts, it was stated before the AO that the value of the property should be considered on the basis of the date of entering the first agreement dated 12.08.1997 and since consideration paid by the assessee and the co-owners is more than the valuation of the said property, i.e. Rs.63,88,500/- accepted by Collector, Nashik, no addition is called for. But ld. AO was not satisfied with these contentions and was of the considered view that value of the property as on 06.02.2016 at Rs.19,85,97,000/- is to be adopted as purchase consideration as the registered agreement has been entered into on this date and
Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who after considering the submissions of the assessee and also placing reliance on the decision of this Tribunal dated 19.07.2022 passed in the case of one of the co-owners, namely Shri Pravinchandra Walchand Shah accepted the assessee’s contention that part payment made on 08.01.1997 is to be considered and held that First and Second proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act shall be applicable in the instant case and date of agreement fixing the consideration of Rs.30.00 lakh for the transfer of immovable property is to be considered as 12.08.1997 when the original agreement to sell was entered between the parties.
Aggrieved Revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal. Although Revenue has raised 5 grounds of appeal challenging the finding of ld.CIT(A) but they all have been raised on the one single issue regarding deletion of addition of Rs.4,86,49,250/- being 25% share of assessee in the total value of immovable property situated at S.No.883/1/1/ Nashik admeasuring 9457 sq.mtrs.
5. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of the AO and further contended that the assessee has failed to bring on record any reason why the agreement entered into in the year 1997 was not registered. It clearly shows that the assessee in order to evade the situation of paying the purchase consideration as per the stamp duty valuation as on 06.02.2016, has cooked a story for purchasing the property in the year 1997. He further stated that there is nothing in law to adopt the fixation of consideration at a lower Rajendra Rasiklal Shah value in sale deed than actual market value/stamp duty and this loophole has been misused to evade payment of tax or make under hand dealing in cash and to prevent this misuse only the provisions of section 50C and 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act have been inserted in the legislature.
6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee apart from placing reliance on the finding of ld.CIT(A) also referred to the decisions of this Tribunal on identical issue in the case of other co-purchasers where except the fact that the assessee and other co-owners paid part consideration through banking channel on 08.01.1997, all other contentions of the assessee were accepted and even this Tribunal has directed the AO to consider 04.10.2014 as the date of calculating the stamp duty valuation of the land. Ld. AR further submitted that at that point of time when the matter was being heard by this Tribunal in case of other co-purchasers, copy of bank passbook was not available and now the copy of bank passbook is available on record and the same is placed at page 125 of the paper book which clearly reflects the payment of part consideration of Rs.3.00 lakh given on 08.01.1997. He also submitted that once the stamp duty authority have assessed/adopted certain value which in this case the value assessed by the Collector, Nashik (while registering the agreement to sale/purchase) the AO cannot substitute the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority with the stamp duty valuation of the land as on the date of registration of the agreement. Reliance placed on the decisions of Coordinate Bench, Mumbai and Ahmedabad in the case of Kamala Brothers Vs. ITO 176 TTJ 178 (Mumbai), Hasmukhbhai M. Patel Vs. ACIT 46 SOT 419 (Ahd.), and on the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Quark Media House (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2017) 391 ITR 154 (P&H). While concluding, Ld. Counsel for the assessee also referred to the affidavit of the vendor No.4 i.e. seller of the property Milind Balasaheb Kale affirming the receipt of the part consideration through banking channel on 08.01.1997. He therefore prayed that the finding of ld.CIT(A) may be affirmed.
7. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Revenue is aggrieved with the finding of ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.4,86,49,250/- made by the ld.AO invoking section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act.
8. Before proceeding, we would like to go through the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act which reads 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) any sum of money, without consideration, the aggregate value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the whole of the aggregate value of such sum; (b) any immovable property,— (i) without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property; (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.”
On going through the above provision, we observe that the said section states that where the consideration paid for acquiring the immovable property is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding Rs.50,000/-, the stamp duty value of such property exceeding such consideration is to be treated as ‘Income from other sources u/s.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. But there are two exceptions provided to this provision and they both are relevant for the issue under consideration since it is claimed by the assessee that original agreement to sell was entered on 12.08.1997 and part consideration was paid in advance by banking channel on 08.01.1997 and Stamp Valuation as on 12.08.1997 is to be considered.
Ld. AO has invoked section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act when he observed that the sale deed has been registered on 06.02.2016 and the stamp duty value of such immovable property being land located at S.No.883/1/1, Nashik is Rs.19,85,97,000/- whereas the consideration mentioned in the registered sale deed is only Rs.72.00 lakh. Ld. AO thus calculated 25% of the share in the alleged property at Rs.4,96,49,250/- and after giving the deduction for the amount paid by the assessee at Rs.10.00 lakh, made the addition for the remaining amount of Rs.4,86,49,250/-.
Now the contention of the assessee is that the transaction took place on 12.08.1997 when the property was purchased for the consideration fixed at Rs.30.00 lakh of which Rs.3.00 lakh was paid through bank cheque on 08.01.1997. The chronology of the events from 12.08.1997 till the date of registering the agreement on 06.02.2016 is as under :
Date Particulars Page Nos. of Remarks Paper Book 12.08.1997 Unregistered agreement 42-49 Total purchase consideration fixed to purchase land at Rs.30 lakhs, out of which executed by assessee Rs.3,00,000/- paid through bank along with five other co- cheques dated 01.01.1997 and owners from Kale 08.01.1997. family members Specifically agreed as per Clauses 3 to 5 and 11, that balance consideration of Rs.27 lakhs shall be payable only after contractual obligation on part of sellers regarding updating of land revenue records with names of rightful owners and obtaining relevant permissions, is completed by sellers.
Substantial rights in land transferred to purchasers including right to receive TDR in name of purchasers in case of compulsory acquisition of land by Nashik Municipal Corporation [clause 2]. 25.01.2001 Unregistered 55-58 Possession of land received by the Possession Receipt assessee with the right to handover dated 25.01.2001 the possession to any other person as per discretion of assessee. 04.10.2014 Unregistered 70-76 Contractual obligations fulfilled by Compensation Receipt sellers only in 2014. Sellers dated 04.10.2014 requested the assessee to pay compensation of Rs.42 lakhs over and above the purchase consideration of Rs.30 lakhs decided as per agreement dated 12.08.1997, in view of the fact that the value of balance consideration of Rs.27 lakhs planned to be paid around 1997 had reduced substantially due to passage of time till 2014, due to delay on part of sellers to complete the relevant legal formalities. Assessee agreed to the request, in order to avoid protracted litigation, although sellers had no legal right to claim such compensation in view of clear terms of agreement dated 12.08.1997.
Total amount of Rs.38 lakhs paid through banking channel (3 lakhs in 1997 and 35 lakhs in 2014) 09.09.2015 Unregistered Final 88-93 Entire amount of Rs.72 lakhs paid Payment Receipt upto 09.09.2015 through banking (Bharna Pavti) dated channel, including balance amount 09.09.2015 of Rs.34 lakhs paid after 04.10.2014. 06.02.2016 Agreement dated 94-105 The Agreement to Sale executed on 12.08.1997 was 12.08.1997 was registered with the REGISTERED before Collector on 06.02.2016, upon Collector of Stamps, payment of stamp duty and penalty Nashik under Amnesty Scheme.
The stamp duty of Rs.5,11,000/- was paid @ 8% on stamp valuation of land as on date of execution of agreement i.e. 12.08.1997, which was assessed at Rs.63,88,000/- by the Collector, Nashik.
Further, penalty of Rs.20,44,000/- was also paid for regularization of the said agreement.
Further, we notice that ld.CIT(A) on considering the fact that the transaction has taken place on 12.08.1997 and part consideration has been paid in advance on 08.01.1997, gave relief to the assessee observing as under : “Findings: 6.4 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, assessment order, arguments and submissions of the appellant made during the appellate proceedings. On perusal of the same, it is noticed that, the appellant and 5 others had entered into an agreement to purchase the land on 12/08/1997 for a consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-was paid by cheque before the date of the impugned agreement. As per the agreement to purchase, the sellers were to fulfil certain conditions and the purchasers were required to pay the balance consideration on fulfilment of the conditions agreed upon by the sellers. The sellers have fulfilled the conditions agreed upon by them and the impugned agreement to purchase dated 12/08/1997 was registered on 06/02/2016 under the Amnesty Scheme by paying stamp duty of Rs. 5,11,000/- on the value of the land on 12/08/1997 for stamp duty purpose of Rs. 63,88,000/- @ 8% and fine of Rs. 20,44,000/-. In the meantime, the sellers demanded additional consideration of Rs.42,00,000/-, considering the passage of time and inflation as the value of the consideration fixed in the year 1997 and paid to the extent of Rs.27,00,000/- on much later date has substantially decreased. The purchasers have paid the impugned additional consideration considering the inflation and to avoid litigation in the years 2014 and 2015 by account payee cheques.
The AO, however did not allow the benefit of provisions to section 56(2)(vii)(b) to the appellant raising the contentions, which are dealt with as under.
6.5 The first contention of the AO is that, the final price was fixed at Rs.72,00,000/- which was not fixed by the agreement dated 12/08/1997 and hence, the said agreement is to be ignored for the purpose of section 56(2)(vii)(b). The impugned price was fixed in F.Y. 2015-16 as per the registered sale deed and hence, the value of the property for stamp duty purpose is to be considered on the date of registering the agreement.
6.6 In this regard, it is noticed that, the impugned consideration fixed at Rs. 30,00,000/- was increased by Rs. 42,00,000/- in the year 2014-15. The appellant and other co-owners agreed for additional payment of Rs.42,00,000/-considering the fact that the consideration of Rs.30,00,000/-was fixed in the year 1997 and was paid in the said year only to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/- and the balance payment of Rs.27,00,000/- was made after substantial period and hence, the value of the same was reduced due to inflation. The contention of the AO that, the impugned consideration was fixed in F.Y. 2015-16 at Rs.72,00,000/-, cannot be accepted, as the value of the land in this year for stamp duty purpose as per Sub-Registrar's office was Rs.
19,85,97,000/-. In the absence of agreement to purchase dated 12/08/1997 on which the price was fixed at Rs.30,00,000/-, the sellers would not have determined the price in the year 2015-16 at Rs. 72,00,000/- by demanding compensation for delayed payment. The reason for delay in executing and registering the sale deed was also explained by the appellant in the submission filed.
6.7 In support of the above contention, on the above issue, the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of Honorable Mumbai ITAT, in the case of Maitri Ms. Maitri Morarji Vs. ITO-4 (1), Mumbai, vide order dated 05/12/2018. In this case, the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT has decided the issue of payment made by purchaser of the property in addition to the price fixed as per earlier agreement to purchase. In this case, the purchaser THPCL had agreed to purchase the land from the appellant and other co-owners for consideration of Rs.34,937/-, as per agreement dated 10/03/1971. The 10% of consideration was payable on the date of agreement, 50% was payable upon handing over of formal possession and the balance 40% was payable upon completion of sale. The assessee and other co- owners had given possession of the property within 4 months from the date of agreement as per the possession receipt entered into. The sale deed was executed on 31/12/2009. The assessee received additional consideration of Rs.52,56,200/-in the year of entering into sale deed. The Hon'ble ITAT held that the sellers had already transferred certain rights out of bundle of rights in the said property in favour of the purchaser in the year 1971 by entering into agreement to sale as well as handing over of the possession. Therefore, the sellers have limited right in the property and to enter into conveyance deed was one of the rights attached to the property which has been transferred by the assessee in favour of the purchaser against the compensation paid in the form of additional consideration. The Hon'ble Tribunal has further held that, the seller shall be liable to capital gain on additional consideration of Rs.52,56,200/- on account of compensation received on entering into registered sale deed. The Hon'ble Tribunal has held that provisions of section 50C are not applicable on the facts of the case. The ratio laid down by the above decision, supports the contention of the appellant.
6.8 The next contention and conclusion of the AO is that, the value of the asset on the date of registered sale deed i.e. on 06.02.2016 was Rs.19,85,97,000/- and the appellant's share was 25% and hence, the value of the transfer of asset is to be considered u/s 56(2)(vii)(b), after deducting consideration paid by the appellant of Rs. 10,00,000/- at Rs.4,86,49,250/-, In this regard, the appellant has submitted that, the impugned agreement to purchase the land dated 12.08.1997 was registered on 06.02.2016 by paying stamp duty and penalty. From the impugned registered agreement, it is noticed that, the stamp duty was levied on the value of the property in the year 1997, of Rs.63,88,000/- @ 8% at Rs.5,11,000/-, 'Therefore, the contention and conclusion of the AO that, the value of the asset on the date of registered sale deed on 06.02.2016 is to be considered at 25% of Rs.19,85,97,000/- cannot be upheld.
6.9 It is also noticed from the submission of the appellant that, during the scrutiny assessment proceedings of one of the co-purchasers of the impugned land viz. Shri Shilesh R. Shah, the National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi has accepted the identical contention of the assessee and passed assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.263 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and accepted the contention of the assessee.
6.10 It is further noticed from the submission of the appellant that, in the case of one of the co-owners of the impugned land viz. Shri. Pravinchandra Walchand Shah, the Pr.CIT had passed revision order u/s 263 directing the AO to make addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b). Shri. Pravinchandra Valchand Shah had filed appeal against the order u/s 263 for AY 2016-17 before the Honorable ITAT Pune. The Honorable ITAT Pune decided the appeal vide order dt. 19.07.2022. The Honorable ITAT has accepted the contention of Shri. Pravinchandra Walchand Shah that, the payments were made on 01.01.1997 and hence, the value for stamp duty purposes, on the date of agreement entered into in the year 1997 is to be considered as per first and second proviso to section 56(2)(vii) (b) of the Act. The relevant para of the order is as under.
"7. Learned counsel at this stage invited our attention to section 56(2)(vii) (b) of the Act, and referred to 1" and 2" proviso thereunder his case is that the corresponding addition could not exceed stamp duty value of the asset in any case under clause (ii) thereof. And that the authorities concerned may also adopt stamp duty value on the date of agreement provided that the considerations payment in whole or in part; as the case may be, was made through banking channel. He invited our attention to first three payments instances dated 01.01.1997 (supra) to claim benefit of the foregoing twin proviso(es).
Faced with the situation, we are of the considered opinion that it shall, be upon for the assessee to claim the benefit of foregoing twin beneficial provisions in consequential proceedings before the Assessing Officer which shall be considered as per law. Ordered accordingly."
6.11 In view of the above facts and discussion, the contention of the appellant is accepted and Grounds No.1 and 2 are allowed.”
Going through the above finding of ld.CIT(A), firstly we note that in paras 6.4 to 6.7, the Id. CIT(A) has noted that that the consideration for sale of land was already fixed at Rs.30 lakhs vide Agreement dated 12.08.1997 and advance of Rs.3 lakhs was also paid by bank cheques before the impugned agreement dated 12.08.1997. The CIT(A) has further noted that the appellant has also explained the reasons due to which the impugned agreement Rajendra Rasiklal Shah dated 12.08.1997 was registered only on 06.02.2016. The CIT(A) has further noted that the purchasers had agreed to pay enhanced consideration of Rs.42 lakhs during F.Y.2014 15, in addition to the consideration fixed at Rs.30 lakhs, merely to compensate the sellers for the reduction in value of balance consideration of Rs.27 lakhs payable vide agreement dated 12.08.1997, which was actually paid in the year 2014 after completion of legal formalities by the sellers. The CIT(A) has held that merely because the purchasers had agreed to pay such enhanced consideration in the year 2014 to compensate the reduction in value of balance consideration, the A.O. is not justified in concluding that the consideration for sale of land was not fixed vide agreement dated 12.08.1997. In this regard, the CIT(A) has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in case of Ms. Maitri Morarji v. ITO [ITA No. 3864/Mum/2016] dated 05.12.2018 to delete the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) made by the A.Ο.
Secondly, in para 6.8, the CIT(A) has noted that on 06.02.2016, it was only the earlier agreement dated 12.08.1997 which was registered belatedly upon payment of stamp duty and penalty. At the time of registration, the Stamp Duty Authority has adopted the valuation of the said land at Rs.63,88,000/- and levied stamp duty @ 8% thereon, which works out to Rs.5,11,000/-. In view of this categorical finding, the CIT(A) has held that the A.O. could not have substituted the valuation of the land adopted by the Stamp Duty Authorities at Rs.63,88,000/- with the FMV of the land of Rs.19.85 crore. prevailing as on the date of registration i.e. 06.02.2016. Accordingly, the CIT(A) has held that the addition u/s.56(2)(vii)(b) made by the A.O. is not sustainable.
Thirdly, in para 6.9 and 6.10, the CIT(A) has noted that in case of two other co-purchasers of this land, namely, Mr. Shailesh Shah and Mr. Pravinchandra Walchand Shah, the Dept. had initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 for A.Y.2016 17 for verification of applicability of section 56(2)(vii)(b) on this very transaction. After detailed enquiries, the A.O. has accepted the claim of the assessees in those cases, without making any addition u/s.56(2)(vii)(b) in the asst. order u/s.143(3) rws 263 in both the cases. Thus, the CIT(A) has held that the addition u/s.56(2)(vii)(b) made by the department in case of the assessee by taking a different view on identical facts, is not sustainable in law.
Now we further notice that the assessee has furnished the copy of bank passbook placed at page 125 of the paper book which is in the name of one of the co-owner namely Pravinchand Walchand Shah and the bank account is maintained with United Western Bank Ltd. Nashik bearing Account No.82/380 and in the said bank account in January 1997 cheques issued to the sellers of the immovable property in question have been cleared. In this passbook one of the name appearing is M.B. Kale and the full form of this is Milind Balasaheb Kale who has filed an affidavit on record stating that he along with other family members namely Balasaheb B, Kale Nandkumar Digamber Kale, Chandrashekar Balasaheb Kale, sold the land admeasuring 9457 sq.mtrs located at S.No.883/1/1, Nashik and have received part sale consideration of Rs.3.00 lakh in advance on 08.01.1997. In this very bank statement, another name appearing N.K. Kale who happens to be a brother of M.B.Kale. So this fact gets verified with the original transaction of purchase of the immovable property in question as the advance payment of Rs.3.00 lakh for Rajendra Rasiklal Shah purchase of immovable property given on 08.01.1997 is incorporated in the agreement to sale entered on 12.08.1997. Now once this fact stands verified the remaining details are also found in order that the compensation was first fixed at Rs.30.00 lakh and then part consideration was not paid since some contractual obligations were to be fulfilled from the side of vendors M.B. Male and others. That the possession of the property has been given to the assessee on 25.01.2001 and the same is supported by the possession receipt placed at pages 52 to 58 of the paper book. Further when the contractual obligations were completed and names of original owners were entered into the Government Land Records on 04.10.2014, the purchase consideration was revised to Rs.72.00 lakh which seems to be normal considering the fact that the assessee along with other co- owners did not pay Rs.27.00 lakh (part consideration of Rs.30.00 lakh fixed in the agreement dated 12.08.1997) and certainly the value of money reduced from 1997 to 2014. Therefore, the purchase consideration was revised from Rs.30.00 lakh to Rs.72.00 lakh. Now another important fact is that when the assessee approached the stamp value authority for registering the agreement to sale dated 12.08.1997 under Amnesty Scheme stamp duty of Rs.5,11,000/- was paid @8% on the value assessed at Rs.63,88,0000/- and further penalty of Rs.20,44,0000/- was also paid for regularization of the said agreement. This act of the stamp valuation authority collecting the aforesaid stamp duty and penalty itself prove that they were satisfied with the correctness and genuineness of the agreement dated 12.08.1997 and therefore gave the benefit of Amnesty Scheme to the assessee. Had they been not satisfied, they would have certainly adopted the value of Rs.19.89 crore approx. and could have charged much more stamp duty from the assessee and other co-owners.
Now once the registering authority has accepted the documents and the genuineness of the agreement dated 12.08.1997 duly supported with the bank passbook placed before us, it clearly indicate that the agreement for purchase of the immovable property in question was agreed for on 12.08.1997 and therefore first and second proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act will be applicable and the stamp duty value has to be calculated on the property value assessed as on 12.08.1997. Since the value assessed by the stamp duty valuation authority at Rs.63,88,000/- is less than the actual consideration of Rs.72.00 lakh paid by the assessee and other co-owners, no addition could have been made u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. To this extent, there is no infirmity in the finding of ld.CIT(A).
So far as the decision of this Tribunal dated 08.02.20223 in to 2068/Pun/2019 in case of three co-purchasers, the claim of the co-owners that the transaction took place on 12.08.1997 was not supported by the copy of bank passbook. The absence of this very important document left no option with this Tribunal except to consider the first available date of the bank transaction taking place in 2014 as the date for entering into the agreement. However, in the order of the Tribunal (supra), it was observed by this Tribunal that it is an undisputed fact that the assessee placed the bank statement as on 04.10l.2014 and on this basis directions were given to the AO to grant the benefit of first and second proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act by considering the stamp duty valuation of the impugned land as on 04.10.2014, i.e. date of making the bank payment. Applying the same analogy, we are satisfied that the first payment through banking channel towards part purchase consideration was given at Rs.3.00 lakh on 08.01.1997 duly supported by bank passbook Rajendra Rasiklal Shah as well as the affidavit of the vendor, and therefore to this extent of the first payment for purchase transaction being made on 08.01.1997, the facts of the case are distinguishable to that with the facts placed before this Tribunal in the case of other three co- purchasers.
To conclude, we are of the considered view that since the agreement to sell took place on 12.08.1997 and consideration was fixed on that date at Rs.30.00 lakh and part purchase consideration of Rs.3.00 lakh was paid in advance through banking channel on 08.01.1997, therefore first and second proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act will be applicable and the stamp duty value as on 12.08.1997 is to be adopted and the same has been adopted by the stamp valuation authority while registering the purchase documents and the consideration passed on by the assessee and other co-owners at Rs.72.00 lakh exceeds the value of Rs.62,88,0000/- assessed by the Stamp Valuation authority and therefore no addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is called for in the hands of the assessee. Thus, no interference is called for in the finding of ld.CIT(A). All the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 20th day of March, 2025.