9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in: i) deleting an addition of Rs. 13,58,550/- made u/s. 69B of the I.T. Act made on account of account of undisclosed investment in purchase of (1/2 share) property. ii) deleting an addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- made on account of investment from undisclosed sources in purchase of (1/2 share) property by admitting additional evidence in contravention of Rule 46A of the IT Rules and without providing an opportunity to the AO as required under the Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules. (2) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground(s) of appeal raised above at the time of hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the AO. 5. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that Sh. Ashwani Taneja, Advocate for the assessee relied upon the order passed by the First Appellate Authority and stated that the assessee has filed the copy of agreement dated 10.3.2008 relating to sell on of share in property no.571L, Shastri Nagar, Meerut by Smt. Sudha Garg to Sh. Ram Prasad S/o Sh. Harpal of Village Habibpur Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar. regarding he sale of share in the property alongwith the letter dated 4.5.2010 which the assessee has filed at Page No. 3 of the Paper Book and agreement at pages 13-15 of the Paper Book containing Pages 1 to 57A. The Ld. Counsel of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... some extra consideration was paid by the assessee for acquiring the property over and above the amount of sales consideration as shown in the sale deed. It is not understood as to why the value taken by the Registrar of properties for purpose of stamp duty payable can be considered as the sole consideration, and not any amount higher or lower than that. Payment of stamp duty cannot be sole criteria to presume that assessee must have paid that much amount for purchase of the property. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that in case, there was any doubt to the AO, he should have referred the matter to the Valuation Officer for valuation of the property before invoking the provisions of section 69B of the Act. We find that Ld. CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered the submissions made by the assessee and precise summary of facts submitted during the course of appellate proceedings. He find that the assessee submitted a copy of the Agreement to Sell dated 10.3.2008 which is duly notarized, entered between Smt. Sudha Garg, (mother of the appellant), and Shri Ram Prasad, for sale of House No.. L-581, 3, Shashtri Nagar, Meerut, for a total consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/- against which Smt. Sudha Garg had received a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- in cash i.e. Rs. 6,00,000/- on 20.2.2008 and Rs. 5,OO,000/- on 10.3.2008. This sale deed is entered into by Smt. Sudha Garg mother of the assessee. Property mentioned therein for sale is not disputed that it does not belong to Smt. Sudha Garg. We find that ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
