9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, the stamp duty value was determined at Rs. 44.54 lacs and further assessee also filed a letter from Tehsildar in the hand written form with Tehsil of Jalalabad, Dist Shajahanpur. Since, Tehsildar had issued the relevant certificate with his signature and stamp, even though, it is in written form, the Ld. CIT(A) should not have rejected the same. In our considered view the assessee has submitted the relevant information which shows that assessee has purchased the agricultural land at Jalalabad. Since, the assessee has purchased agricultural land the same is outside the definition of capital asset, therefore, the deeming provision u/s 56(2)(x) cannot be invoked in this case. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that the details of the property and mode of payment the same is reproduced by the AO at page 2 of the order. Subsequently, the assessee was asked to provide documentary proof of the above said agricultural land. However, the Assessing Officer not received any documentary evidences and accordingly, he proceeded to adopt the purchase value of Rs. 44,54,000/- and the difference of Rs. 24,54,000/- was treated as income through other sources and the same was added to the total income of the assessee u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC Delhi and filed the detailed submissions before him. Further considering the submissions of the assessee and assessment order, the Ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (14) of the Act and being agricultural land deeming provision of section 56(2)(x) will not apply. Further, he submitting that the transaction entered by the assessee which is the Arms Length Price and there is no relationship with the seller. He brought to our notice the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) from page 12 to 14 of the order. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the findings of the lower authorities and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) should have referred the issue back to the Assessing Officer instead of dismissing the appeal. 8. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observed that the assessee purchased agricultural land and paid a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- as purchased consideration. The assessee also fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
