2025 (3) TMI 302 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69B for the purchase of immovable property - difference in the Loan amount and consideration for the purchase of immovable property - HELD THAT - CIT(A) considered the loan amount as received from ICICI Bank. However the assessee contended that the actual loan amount was Rs. 30, 00, 000/-. Upon review we find that there is a factual discrepancy in this regard. Therefore we remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for verification of the addition granting the assessee an opportunity to furnish any relevant evidence or documents during the set-aside assessment proceedings. Addition u/s 56(2)(x) - assessee purchased the property less than stamp duty valuation - HELD THAT - As assessee had already requested before the CIT(A) that the valuation be considered in accordance with the Third Proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. However we find that the CIT(A) passed the order without considering this aspect. Accordingly we remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for reconsideration of the issue. AO is directed to refer the valuation of the property to the DVO taking into account the provisions of the Third Proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act.

Summary

The issues presented and considered in the legal judgment are as follows:1. Whether the addition of Rs. 84,040/- as unexplained investments under section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the purchase of immovable property was justified.2. Whether the addition of Rs. 21,76,000/- as income from other sources under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was correctly upheld.3. Whether the penalty under section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be retained for the sustained additions.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:Issue 1:The assessee contended that the difference in the loan amount and consideration for the purchase of the property was paid from his own sources, not unexplained investments. The Court found a factual discrepancy in the loan amount considered by the assessing officer and directed a remittance to verify the addition of Rs. 84,040/-.Issue 2:Regarding the addition of Rs. 21,76,000/- as income from other sources, the assessee argued that the valuation should have been referred to the Departmental Valuation Office (DVO) as per the Third Proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The Court remitted the matter to the assessing officer to reconsider the valuation by the DVO.Significant Holdings:The Court allowed the appeal for statistical purposes on both grounds related to the additions under sections 69B and 56(2)(x) of the Act. The Court also directed a reconsideration of the penalty under section 271AAC(1) in line with the final determination of the additions.In conclusion, the Court found discrepancies in the assessment related to unexplained investments and income from other sources, leading to a remittance for further verification and reconsideration. The penalty under section 271AAC(1) was also subject to review based on the final determination of the additions.