PRITHVI RAJ VALECHHA ,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-28(1), KOLKATA

After hearing rival contentions, I find that there is no dispute on the fact that the transaction in question had finally taken place on 11th March, 2013, by way of a Registered sale deed bearing no.:- 1-3519 of 2013. The ld. CIT(A) at page 4 para 4, recorded as follows:- “1 have considered the finding of the A.O, written submissions of the appellant's A/R and the material on record. The appellant has mainly contested the addition made by the A.O u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act, on the ground that firstly, the agreement of purchase of land was made in the year 2006-07, but due to some defects in title deed of the land, the property was finally transferred to your appellant in the year 2012-13 by a registered deed No: 1-3519 of 2013 dated 11/03/2013. It was also averred that as per the registered deed conveyed by the Vendors. it is evident the property was transferred on 11th March. 2013, the whole consideration amount was paid on or before the said date and the sale deed was executed & presented before the Registrar on the same date and the required stamp duty was also paid by 12th March, 2013. (Emphasis Ours) 3. It is clear from the above that this transaction has to be brought to tax in the Assessment Year 2013-14 as the transaction took place in the financial year 2012-13 and not during the Assessment Year 2014-15. Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, was not in the statute during the Assessment Year 2013-14.

Assessment Year: 2014-15 Prithvi Raj Valechha 3.1. In view of the above discussion, I delete the additio In view of the above discussion, I delete the addition made by invoking the by invoking the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as this is bad in law and allow this appeal of the assessee.