KAVITA HAHAR,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BHILAI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA
आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-II, Raipur, dated 25.04.2018, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 07.03.2016 for assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: 1. The learned CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that as per the terms of the registered deed, the expenses for stamp duty and registration was of the seller. The appellant being the purchaser had nothing to do with it. 2. The Id. CIT (A) has ignored the fact that the seller had admitted to have incurred part of such expenses at Rs. 372, 000/- relatable to the 'sale value' of the property. It follows, therefore, the balance of the expenses, worked out on the basis of Fair market value', was also paid by the seller. 3. The Id. CIT (A) has grossly erred in placing reliance on the statement made on behalf of the seller denying incurring of extra expenditure, which is at variance with the terms of the deed. 4. The Id. CIT (A) has also overlooked the fact that the statement of the seller was never recorded. 5. The Id. CIT (A) has failed to consider that there is absolutely no shred of evidence to link the appellant to the alleged investment that she was not supposed to make in the first place.
Succinctly stated, the assessee had e-filed her return of income for AY 2013-14 on 20.11.2013, declaring an income of Rs.6,43,940/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under section 143(2) of the Act.
3 ITA No. 126/RPR/2018
During the course of assessment proceedings, it was, inter-alia, observed by the A.O that the assessee had during the year under consideration purchased a property, viz. land admeasuring 0.280 hectare/0.689 acre having Khasra No.7/2, 7/7 and 7/162 of Bathena, PHN 19, RNM Bhothli, Tehsil-Dhamatari, Bandbost No.43/319 within the municipal corporation of Ward No.5, Dist-Dhamatarai (CG) for a value of Rs.60 lac vide registered deed dated 01.12.2012. On a perusal of the aforesaid registered deed, it was observed by the AO that as agreed amongst the parties the expenditure in respect of stamp duty and registration cess was to be borne by the seller of the land, i.e Smt. Ratan Ben W/o Shri Premji Bhai Patel (PAN:AFBPP5553P). It was further observed by the AO that though the cost of the land was mentioned at Rs. 60 lac, but as per the stamp valuation authority its Fair Market value (“FMV”) was Rs.1,30,69,400/. On the basis of the aforesaid fact, it was observed by the AO that the cost of the stamp duty which was shown in the registered deed at Rs.3,72,000/- was not the actual figure but amounted to Rs.8,11,976/-, i.e after applying equivalent ratio of stamp duty and registration cess on the FMV of the aforesaid land. Considering the aforesaid fact the AO called upon the seller of the land along with her son to put forth an explanation as regards the aforesaid variance in the stamp duty/registration charges. In reply, it was submitted by the seller that she had incurred the stamp/registration charges of Rs. 3.72 lac and no other cost was borne by
4 ITA No. 126/RPR/2018
her. In the backdrop of the aforesaid fact, the AO called upon the assessee, i.e the purchaser of the land to put forth an explanation as regards the balance amount of stamp duty and registration charges of Rs. 4,39,976/- [Rs. 8,11,976 (minus) Rs.3,72,000]. In reply, it was the claim of the assessee that as per the terms of the purchase deed the entire amount of stamp expenses and the registration charges were to be borne by the seller of the land. The A.O in absence of any explanation forthcoming as regards the source out of which the balance amount of stamp duty/registration charges of Rs.4,39,976/- (supra) was incurred, thus, made an addition of the said amount in the hands of the assessee on a protective basis, and for substantive addition intimated the aforesaid facts to the AO of the seller, viz Smt. Ratan Ben (supra). Accordingly, the AO on a protective basis made an addition of Rs. 4,39,976/- towards unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act in the hands of the assessee.
Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without any success.
The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us.
We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on
5 ITA No. 126/RPR/2018
record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their contentions.
Admittedly, as had been brought to our notice by the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee, the responsibility for meeting out the stamp duty expenses and registration charges as mentioned in the registered sale deed, dated 01.12.2012 were to be borne by the seller, viz. Smt. Ratan Ben (supra), Page 6-7/13 of APB [copy of registered sale deed]. In our considered view, now when it is a matter of an admitted fact discernible from record, i.e copy of the registered sale deed that the stamp duty expenses along with registration charges were to be borne by the seller, viz. Smt. Ratan Ben (supra), then even if any discrepancy as regards the same did emerge, then no adverse inferences could have been drawn in the hands of the assessee. Apart from that, we are of the considered view now when as per the registered sale deed the stamp duty charges had been worked out and paid on the amount of the sale transaction of Rs. 60 lac (supra), then, in absence of any material proving to the contrary there could have been no justification or basis for inferring that the same was paid on the FMV of Rs.1,30,96,400/-. Considering the aforesaid facts, we are unable to concur with the view taken by the lower authorities and accordingly, set- aside the order of the CIT(A) and vacate the addition of Rs. 4,39,976/- made
6 ITA No. 126/RPR/2018
by the AO on a protective basis u/s. 69 of the Act in the hands of the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations.
Order pronounced in open court on 28th day of April, 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; �दनांक / Dated : 28th April, 2023 *#Thirumalesh/SB आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT, Raipur-II (C.G) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // �नजी स�चव / Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur.
