By Jagdish T. Punjabi | Prachi Parekh | Chartered Accountants
Devendra Jain | Advocate
23. [2020] 208 TTJ 835 (Mum.)(Trib.) Mohd. Ilyad Ansari vs. ITO A.Y.: 2014-15 Date of order: 6th November, 2020
Section 56(2) – The A.O. was erroneous in mechanically applying the provisions of section 56(2) to the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual sale consideration – The addition made by the A.O. without making a reference to the DVO despite the assessee submitting valuation report was unjustified
FACTS
The assessee was engaged in the business of readymade garments. During the year under consideration, he purchased a flat jointly with his wife for a total consideration of Rs. 40,00,000 which was part of an SRA project. The builder, unable to complete the project, decided to exit from it at the half-way stage. An attempt to revive the project also failed, leading to the flat being sold at a distress price of Rs. 40,00,000 to the assessee. The sale was registered and thereafter the builder disappeared without completing the project. The agreement was made by the builder for a flat admeasuring 1,360 sq. feet. However, when the assessee got the possession, he found that it had been sold to two persons. The actual area of the flat, too, was only 784 sq. feet against the agreement area of 1,360 sq. feet. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that the stamp duty valuation of the flat is Rs. 2,20,49,999 but the assessee had purchased it only for Rs. 40,00,000.
The assessee was required to explain why the difference is not to be treated as income u/s 56(2)(vii). The assessee filed a valuation report of Perfect Valuation & Consultants, a Government registered valuer, who valued the flat at Rs. 82.60 lakhs. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee filed this valuation report disputing the valuation made by the Stamp Valuation Authority (SVA). However, the A.O. did not refer the matter of valuation to the District Valuation Officer, though the valuation of the SVA was disputed by the assessee by way of the valuation report. The A.O. made an addition of Rs. 1,80,49,999 u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) in the hands of the assessee. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against this order. But the CIT(A) also did not consider the valuation report submitted by the assessee, holding that the assessee had not disputed the valuation made by the SVA and confirmed the addition. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal.
HELD
The A.O. ignored the valuation report of the Government registered valuer submitted by the assessee. The provisions of section 56(2) had been mechanically applied without making any effort to determine the actual cost of the property. It ought to have been done since the property was acquired in semi-construction stage and later abandoned due to disputes amongst the builders. Besides, there was a dispute as regards the area acquired by the assessee as the same flat had been sold to two parties. In view of these circumstances, it was even more necessary for the A.O. to refer it to the valuation officer. Even at the stage of appellate proceedings when the assessee produced the valuation officer’s report that valued other flats in the very same building at Rs. 1,00,76,000, the CIT(A) should have called for remand report and in turn the valuation officer’s report which the CIT(A) had failed to do.
Thus, it was held that the addition made by the A.O. was totally unjustified and the assessee’s appeal was allowed.
