Shanmuga Sundaram Govindaraj v. ACIT (2022) 196 ITD 576 / 218 TTJ 988 / 216 DTR 329 (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Consideration as per sale deed and whether tolerance limit of 10 per cent for difference between sale consideration as per sale deed and SDV is to be considered or not are debatable issues-Revision is bad in law. [S. 56(2)(vii)(b)]

Assessee is engaged in construction of residential and commercial buildings. Assessee purchased a property for which sale deed was registered for a sum of Rs. 3.25 crores.  During scrutiny, Assessing Officer accepted return filed by assessee and passed assessment order under section 143(3).-Principal Commissioner on perusal of  assessment order noticed that guideline value of property purchased by assessee was fixed at Rs. 3.50 crores by Stamp Valuation Authority (SVA). He invoked revisionery proceedings and directed Assessing Officer to make additions as per section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of Rs. 25 lakhs which was difference between purchase price as per consideration recorded in sale deed and SDV.   Assessee contended that difference in valuation was marginal and same was to be ignored as per section 56(2)(x)(b)(A). held that whether section 56(2)(vii)(b) is to be invoked to make addition of excess of SDV over consideration as per sale deed and tolerance limit of 10 per cent for difference between sale consideration as per sale deed and guideline value fixed by Stamp Valuation Authorityis to be considered or not are  debatable issues, order passed by Assessing Officer taking one of possible view could not be held as erroneous.   Revisionary proceeding was  quashed.  (AY. 2015-16)