GOPAL KUMAR SAHA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1516/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 December 2019AY 2015-162 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in law and fact by making the addition. The genuineness of the agreement and part payment was not doubted, and there was no material to restrict the statutory provision to registered agreements only.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased a property and the Revenue added the difference between the actual and stamp duty value to the income. The assessee had entered into a purchase agreement and made a part payment much earlier.

What were the issues?

Whether the difference between the actual and stamp duty value of a property purchased is taxable when an earlier purchase agreement and part payment exist, even if the agreement is not registered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM

Hearing: 23/12/2019Pronounced: 31/12/2019

BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM आयकर अपीलसं./ (�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Gopal Kumar Saha Vs. ITO, Ward – 37(1), Kolkata 54/5A, OM Building, Strand Road, Barabazar, Kolkata – 700 006. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ASUPS 7018 L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Jayanta Khanra, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाईक�तार�ख/ Date of Hearing : 23/12/2019 घोषणाक�तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-11, Kolkata dated 27.03.2019 passed in case no.CIT(A)-11/Kol/10104/2017-18 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. The registry has already sent it an RPAD notice for today’s hearing. It is accordingly produced ex- parte.

2.

The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action invoking section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) addition of Rs. 19,29,100/- on account of difference between actual and stamp price in the purchase deed executed on 26.11.2014. The Revenue’s only argument is that although the assessee had entered into corresponding purchase agreement on 17.03.2011 and paid cheque amount of Rs. 80,000/- on the very date, the same was not a registered document which could be taken as compliance of section 56(vii)(b) 1st and 2nd proviso to this effect. I find no Gopal Kumar Saha merit in the Revenue’s instant technical argument. The fact remains that neither of the lower authorities has doubted genuineness of assessee’s above stated agreement or part payment made by banking channel. There is further no material supporting the Revenue’s case that the above statutory behest is restricted to a registered agreement only. I therefore hold that both the lower authorities have erred in law as well as on fact in making the impugned tradition of Rs. 19,29,100/- . The same is directed to be deleted.

3.

The assessee’s appeal is allowed

Order is pronounced in the open court on 31.12.2019.

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 →