| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3541 (Ahd-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 50C
Where the assessee has entered into an agreement to sale and received part payment also but transaction got registered on some other date then stamp duty value of property will be taken of the date when agreement took place and not of the date on which registration took place.
|
Capital gains - Full value of consideration - Stamp duty value - As on date of agreement or as on date of registration
The assessee along with five more co-owners had sold two properties. The assessee had shown his share of sale consideration being 25% share. The AO found that sub-Registrar, had valued the property for the purpose of stamp duty payment at Rs. 5,24,83,000 as against sale consideration shown by the assessee at Rs. 3,24,00,000. It was contended by the assessee that he had entered into an agreement to sell on 30-10-2010. A part payment equivalent to 10% of total sale consideration was received at Rs. 32,40,000 by the vendor, and therefore the value for the purpose of section 50C is ought to be seen on the date of agreement which were supported by the receipt of part sale consideration through account payee cheque. AO did not accept this contention of the assessee. He observed that the sale deed was executed on 31-3-2012, and therefore, jantri value (circle rate) for the purpose of stamp duty adopted by the Sub-Registrar on the date of sale i.e. 31-3-2012 is to be adopted for calculating deemed sale consideration. Held: Assessee received part payment of sale consideration at time of sale agreement, and those payments were also recognized in the final sale deed. Therefore, there was no hesitation in concluding that agreement executed was given effect by parties which resulted in execution of sale deed roughly after one and half years. Circle rate at time of execution of agreement was lesser than one adopted by parties as sale consideration. Therefore, full sale consideration for purpose of computing long-term capital gain in hands of the assessee was to be adopted as declared by assessee.
Followed:Rahul G. Patel v. DCIT, 2018) 97 taxmnan.com 598 (Ahd-Trib) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 6155 (Ahd-Trib).
REFERRED : Dharamshibhia Sonani v. ACIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 141 (Ahd-Trib) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4420 (Ahd-Trib) and Manilal Dasbhai Makwana v. ITO, (2018) 96 taxmann.com 219 (Ahd-Trib) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 5179 (Ahd-Trib).
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2012-13
IN THE ITAT AHMEDABAD 'A' BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|