SATYENDRA KUMAR DHAWAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-40(4),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Satyendra Kumar Dhawan National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 30.06.2023 passed for A.Y. 2012-13.

Though the assessee has taken 10 grounds of appeal but his grievance revolves around two issues, namely – (a) whether reopening of the assessment is valid in law or not;

Brief facts of the case are that ld. Assessing Officer had received an information exhibiting the fact that assessee has sold an immovable property at Gaziabad, whose sale value did not match with the Stamp Duty Valuation, vis-à-vis shown by the assessee. Hence a notice under section 148 was issued. The assessee has filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,96,640/- on 17.04.2019.

The chronological events in respect of above sale transaction has been reproduced by the ld. CIT(Appeals) while taking note of the submission of the assessee. We take note of those events, which read as under:- Chronological event in respect of the transaction of sale Date Particular

The ld. Assessing Officer in this way made an addition of Rs.1,41,56,826/-.

Appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee.

With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. Section 50C and its first proviso have a direct bearing on this controversy. Therefore, we deem it

A perusal of the above section would reveal that if an assessee has received a consideration or such consideration has accrued to the assessee on sale of a capital assets/ building is less than the value adopted or assessed for the purpose of charging Stamp Duty on such transaction, then, full sale consideration would be deemed equal to the amount on which Stamp Duty has been charged. The proviso appended to this Section further contemplates that in case, where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for the transfer of the capital asset are not the same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the Stamp Valuation Authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purposes of computing full value of consideration for such transfer.

In the light of above, let us examine the transaction of the assesseee. It emerges out from the record that the assessee has purchased a plot bearing No. GK1/122 having area of 362.70 sq.mtr. at Indirapuram, Gaziabad for a consideration of Rs.5,62,499/-. The sale deed was executed by the Gaziabad Development Authority in favour of the assessee. Later on assessee sold this plot to one Shri Ravi Kaushik, son of Shri O.P. Sharma for a consideration of Rs.4,51,000/-. This amount was received by the assessee through Bank Draft. The assessee has further executed Power of Attorney in favour of Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma. Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma resold this plot on 18th November, 2011 to one Shri Shiv Dutta Sharma. Therefore, in the hands of the assessee the Stamp Duty Valuation ought to have been determined in the year 2000 and not 2011. Gaziabad Development Authority must have executed the Conveyance Deed in favour of the assessee more than the value determined by the Registering Authority for the purpose of Stamp Duty. Therefore, a deeming sale consideration cannot be assumed in the hands of the assessee in A.Y. 2011. The proviso appended to Section 50C duly protects the assessee from considering the Stamp Duty value as full sale consideration in the hands of the assessee in 2011. Therefore, both the authorities have erred in computing the alleged long-term capital gain in the hands of the assessee. We allow this ground and delete the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/01/2024.