Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member - This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of Ld. CIT (A) III, Surat dated 30-6-2009 for the Assessment Year 2006-07.

2. The only effective ground raised by the Revenue is as under:-

"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A)-III, Surat has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 41,45,255/- holding that the A.O. has not mentioned section 50C of the I.T. Act."

3. The facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual. The appellant filed his return of income on 8.1.2007 declaring total income of Rs. 80,050/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 30.12.2008 by determining the total income at Rs. 42,25,305/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer (A.O) noticed that on 25-6-2004 i.e. in the A.Y. 2005-06, the appellant had booked a flat No.701 with M/s. Patel Brothers Construction Corporation, Patel Apartment, Byculla Mumbai, which was under-construction. The total agreed purchase price was Rs. 15,99,000/- out of which Rs. 50,000/- was payable at the time of booking and the balance amount was payable in installments in such a manner that the entire amount was paid before taking possession of the flat. In addition to the purchase consideration, the appellant had to pay Rs. 13,000/- for legal charges, taxes, electric water deposit, formation of society charges etc. Out of the agreed aggregate consideration of Rs. 16,12,000/- the appellant had paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- at the time of booking on 25-6-2004 by cash and the balance amount was paid by the appellant in various installments from time to time. An amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was kept outstanding by the appellant since the builder i.e. M/s. Patel Construction Corporation had failed to give the possession of the flat in time to the appellant and also failed to allot the promised parking place. As the entire amount was not paid by the appellant, the builder had neither handed over the possession of the flat to the appellant nor had executed any registered sale deed in favour of the appellant. In the current year in the month of May, 2005 the appellant requested the builder to cancel the booking of the flat and return the booking amount as paid by him towards the said flat. In response to the request of the appellant to cancel the booking and return the booking amount, the builder informed that the booking will be cancelled and the amount thereof will be returned back, only after another buyer is located for the said flat and payment is received for it.

4. On 28-2-2006 i.e. in the year under consideration, the appellant, the builder and the new buyer, Mr. Meeraj Abdul Aziz Bhagad, entered into a triparty registered sale agreement for transfer of the said flat, wherein the appellant (addressed as the vendor in the sale agreement) was to transfer all his rights, title and interest in the said flat to the buyer viz. Mr. Meeraj Abdul Aziz Bhagad; the builder M/s. Patel Brothers Construction Corporation (addressed as the confirming party in the sale agreement) was to give the possession of the said flat to the buyer and was also to allot the said flat to the buyer which was originally agreed to be allotted to the appellant and the new buyer viz. Mr. Meeraj Abdul Aziz Bhagad (addressed as the purchaser in the sale agreement) was to acquire only the rights in the said flat from the appellant and the possession and the allotment thereof from the builder. Accordingly, during the year under consideration, the appellant received back the booking amount paid by him to the builder, from the buyer.

5. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the Jt. Sub Registar's Office Mumbai, had considered the value of the said flat at Rs. 57,57,255/- for registration of flat as against the total value of Rs. 16,12,000/- . Accordingly, on the basis of information received from office of the Jt. Registrar Office, Mumbai,