9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 986X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned lower authorities have erred in facts in law in making the impugned addition of Rs. 51.20 lacs; which is also not taxable in case of a partnership firm u/s. 56(2)(x) for the assessment year 2016-17 since inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2017 carrying prospective effect. Faced with this situation, we accept the assessee s sole substantive ground in very terms. Assessee s appeal is allowed. - Shri R.K. Panda, Vice President And Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Girish Ladda For the Department : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM : This assessee s appeal for assessment year 2016-17 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi s order dated 18.10.2023, passed in DIN Order No. ITB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Appellant seeks leave to add, alter, amend or drop any of the grounds taken above. 3. Both the learned representatives next invited our attention to the CIT(A) s detailed discussion claiming the impugned addition of Rs. 51.20 lacs made in the assessment herein dated 19.03.2022, as under : DECISION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON GROUND NO.3: DIFFERENCE AS PER SALE DEED AND STAMP DUTY VALUATION AMOUNTING TO Rs. 51,20,000/- The Appellant Assessee in its submissions in point no.-2.4 states that, the Difference in value as per sale deed and Stamp duty valuation: Regarding the difference Rs. 51,20,000/- in valuation as per ready recknor and actual consideration, it is submitted here, section 56(2) (viii) was applicable only for Individual and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o decide this contention of the Appellant assessee this appellate authority would like to discuss the language of section 69 of the income tax act 1961:- 69. Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the value of the investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year . In the present case appellant assessee has made following investment in land and building 1. Investment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresents difference between assessee s actual purchase price of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- and stamp value of Rs. 2,26,20,000/-, respectively wherein the latter sum stands treated as an instance of unexplained investment. We wish to make it clear that there is not even an iota of evidence indicating the assessee to have actually paid the impugned sum to the vendor(s) concerned before or at the time or after the registration of sale deed. Section 69 of the Act stipulating such an addition of unexplained investment is applicable only when an investment is actually made than which is considered for the purpose of stamp collection only. We accordingly conclude that the learned lower authorities have erred in facts in law in making the impugned addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
