9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, on which proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act were initiated in the case of the assessee, i.e. the source of the investment in the subject property, therefore, he was divested of his jurisdiction from making an independent addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) - difference between the stamp duty value/segment rate of the subject property fixed by the Sub-Registrar, Bilaspur at Rs. 43,03,700/- (supra) and the consideration for which the assessee had purchased the same. As the A.O. had traversed beyond the scope of his jurisdiction and had made an addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) we are unable to concur with the view taken by the lower authorities. Accordingly, the order passed by the A.O u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 is quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction on his part. Thus, the revised ground of appeal No.2 is allowed.. - SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri R.B Doshi, CA For the Respondent : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 17.01.2024, which in turn arises from the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 10,74,150/- in the subject property was sourced from the funds that she had received as compensation against the compulsory acquisition of her property situated at Pussore, Raigarh. The assessee to fortify her aforesaid claim had placed on record a copy of her bank account statement wherein the receipt of the aforesaid amount of compensation was disclosed. The A.O. after vetting the documentary evidence that was filed by the assessee did find favor with her claim as regards the source of the investment in the subject property. 4. It was, however, observed by the A.O that as the assessee had purchased the subject property for Rs. 10,74,150/-, while for its stamp duty value/segment rate fixed by the Sub-Registrar, Bilaspur was Rs. 43,03,700/-, therefore, he called upon the assessee to put forth an explanation as to why the variance may not be added to her returned income u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. In reply, the assessee claimed that as the subject property was disadvantageously located, i.e. located beside a channel, i.e. Nala , and could not be properly put to use, therefore, the same was purchased by her at a value substantially lower than the segment rate/stamp duty value ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Value of the said property was Rs. 4303700. As per the request of the assessee the plot was referred for valuation to the District Valuation officer. According to the assessee, the plot is situated at an under developed area adjoining a Nala, actual area of plot is less than the area of plot in records as per Registry Records. 2. Taxpayer quoted the decisions of CIT, ward -3, Thirunelveli Vs smt Padmavathi where it was held by Madras HC that guide line value is only an indicator and that will always not represent the fair market value of the property . Another case quoted is that of Shanmuga Sundaram Govindaraj, Chennai Vs The ACIT, Non Corporate Circle -14, Chennai - 34, difference in Stamp Duty Value and actual purchase consideration was Rs 25 lakhs but ITAT ruled in favor of taxpayer. 3. Another reason cited is that the State Government itself reduced the Stamp Duty Value of properties by 30% in the year 2018-19. Rebutting those arguments it can be said that the property itself is valued as on 23/1/2014 this means that property is valued retrospectively. Moreover the provisions of the act are very clear on this. The Act only says that the assessing officer may take the valuati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd by her was found by the A.O to be correct and in order. For the sake of clarity, the observation of the A.O to the said effect is culled out as under: 7. ..On verification, it was found by looking at the relevant documents that the said immovable property was purchased by the assessee at Rs. 10,74,150/-. In this regard the assessee was confronted vide show cause notice dated 13-12-2019, to explain the source of investment. In compliance to which the assessee furnished her reply on 18- 12-2019, she claimed to have invested the amount from the fund received on account of compensation received against compulsory acquisition of her property situated at Pussore, Raigarh. To substantiate her claim the assessee has furnished the bank account statement reflecting the credited amount received by way of compensation. The veracity of the same has been examined and placed on record. On perusal of the relevant documents, the contention put forth by the assessee in this regard has been found correct. (emphasis supplied by me) 8. The Ld. AR submitted that though the A.O had initiated the proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act, on the standalone basis, that the assessee had invested towards purchase o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not filed return of income for financial year 2013-14 relevant assessment year 2014-15. Therefore, it is obvious that the investment is made by the assessee out of income, the sources of which apparently have not been disclosed. Thus the aggregate amount of income which has escaped assessment works out to Rs. 43,03,700/-. I have therefore, reason to believe that income of the assessee to the above extent chargeable to tax for A.Y.2o14-15 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In order to rope in the escaped income, action under section 147 is proposed to be initiated by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Sd/- Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Raigarh (C.G) 13. As stated by the Ld. AR, and rightly so, it is a matter of fact borne from the record that the A.O. initially, i.e at the stage of recording the reasons to believe based on which her case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act, held a bonafide belief that she had invested an amount of Rs. 43,03,700/- towards the purchase of the subject property out of her undisclosed income. However, the A.O. while framing the assessment had observed that the subject property wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
