9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion charges on an area of 783.4 sq ft therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has not purchased the said immovable property having 783.4 sq ft of area. The question is not whether certain area was usable or not usable, the question for our adjudication is whether the stamp duty value should be taken as full value of consideration for the purpose of Section 56(2)(vii) and as per provision of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act any immovable property purchased for a consideration which is less than stamp duty value of the property the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration shall be taken for consideration. In the instant case, the value of the property adopted by the revenue authorities for stamp duty valuation is R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 sq ft, differential area being Passage area 185.83 sq. ft. and niche area 73.93 sq ft as per the approved building plan to support his claim. C. The Appellant therefore prays that the disallowance addition of Rs. 30,17,500/- u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act may please be deleted. 3. briefly stated the facts are that the assessee filed his return of income on 22.11.2015 declaring income of Rs. 8,97,080/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and subsequently selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. 3. While scrutinizing the return of income the AO noticed that the assessee has purchased immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,17,500/-. The assessee was asked ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terated what has been stated before the lower authorities. Drawing our attention to the map of the property the ld. counsel pointed out that the assessee has actually agreed to purchase 523.70 sq ft being the usable area but the builder registered the property of an area of 783.4 sq ft and stamp duty has been paid on this area which has not been purchased by the assessee. Therefore, the stamp duty value should not have been considered. The counsel further point out that the matter should have been referred to the Valuation Officer as prayed before the ld. CIT(A) but the ld. CIT(A) choose not to adjudicate on the same. Per contra the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the AO and vehemently contended that no such request was made durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
