9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not justified. (Revised ground of appeal No. 2 vide letter dated 24.04.2024) 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding order passed by the A.O without appreciating that reassessment order is illegal as much as no addition was made by the A.O on the basis of reasons recorded/ which belief for escapement was formed. Reassessment proceedings and consequent reassessment order is illegal and liable to be quashed. 3. Without prejudice to the above ground, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition ignoring the value estimated by the Assistant Valuation Officer, Jabalpur. 4. The appellant reserves the right to amend, modify or add any of the ground/s of appeal." Also the assessee has raised additional ground of appeal which reads as under: "The initiation of reassessment is illegal and invalid inasmuch as approval granted u/s. 151 is not in accordance with provisions of law. There was no application of mind by the approving authority. Consequently, reassessment proceedings and the reassessment order are illegal and liable to be quashed." 2. Based on the information that the assessee had purchased an immovable property valued at Rs. 43,03,700/- but had not filed her return of income f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... à-vis purchase consideration of Rs. 10,74,150/- stated to have paid by the assessee for acquiring the subject property and, thus, made an addition of Rs. 38,29,500/- [Rs. 43,03,700/- (-) Rs. 10,74,150/-] u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his order passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 28.12.2019 determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 32,29,550/-. 5. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT (Appeals). During the course of the proceedings before the CIT(Appeals), the report of the DVO was received by the A.O. As is discernible from the record, the DVO vide his report dated 23.03.2022 had determined the FMV of the subject property at Rs. 15,08,510/- , Page 7 of APB. However, the valuation of the subject property made by the DVO did not find favour with the CIT(Appeals), who referring to certain technical defects and infirmities in the said report declined to adopt the value determined by the DVO. For the sake of clarity, the relevant observations of the CIT(Appeals) are culled out as under: "5.1 The assessing officer had sent the case of purchase of plot for referring to the District Valuation Officer whose repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his value cannot be adopted. The value adopted by the Stamp duty authority at Rs 4303700 is taken as the fair market value of property. The addition proposed by the assessing authority @ Rs 3229550 which is the difference between value declared by the assessee and that of the Stamp Duty Authority is upheld considering the facts and circumstances of the case. This is also the decision rendered by Bangalore ITAT in the case of Innoviti Payments Solutions P. Ltd. v ITO (2019) 69 ITR 33 (SN.) 5.2 In the result the appeal is partly allowed." 6. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal. 7. Shri R.B Doshi, the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'AR') for the assessee at the threshold submitted that the A.O had erred in law and facts of the case in framing the assessment vide his order passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 28/30.12.2019. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that though the A.O had reopened the case of the assessee for the reason that he had invested in the subject property out of her undisclosed sources, but no addition on the said aspect was made by him while framing the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition of Rs. 32,29,550/- (supra) made by the A.O u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act being based on invalid assumption of jurisdiction could not be sustained on the said count itself. 9. Alternatively, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(Appeals) had grossly erred in the law and facts of the case in declining to adopt the value as was determined by the DVO vide his report dated 23.03.2022. Also, the Ld. AR submitted that the DVO had most arbitrarily without putting the assessee to notice about the proposed valuation determined the value of the property at Rs. 15,08,510/-. 10. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'DR') relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 11. I have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 12. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from the record that the case of the assessee was reopened by the A.O, i.e. ITO, Ward-3, Raigarh u/s. 147 of the Act, for the reason that he held a bonafide belief that inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said investment was sourced from her disclosed sources. However, the A.O. had made an independent addition of Rs. 32,29,550/- u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act., i.e. towards the difference between the value adopted by the Stamp valuation authority/Segment rate and purchase consideration of the subject property. 14. Based on the aforesaid facts, I am of a strong conviction that now when the A.O. had not made any addition as regards the very basis, 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) of the Act of Rs. 32,29,550/- (supra), i.e the 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, i.e. Rs. 10,74,150/- (supra). My aforesaid view is fortified by the following judicial pronouncements: (i) ACIT, Raipur Vs. Major Deepak Mehta, (2012) 344 ITR 641 (Chhattisgarh) (ii) CIT-5, Mumbai Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
