9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -. As per information available with the Income Tax Department, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee, along with Shri Siddha Kumar Tripathi, had purchased an agricultural land admeasuring 0.6200 hectare on 01.08.2012 for a consideration of Rs. 12,00,000/-. The AO further noticed that the Market Value of the property for the stamp duty purpose, had been taken at Rs. 71,30,000/-. The AO reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act') by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. Since there was no compliance to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act from the assessee, he issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire. The assessee furnished ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ideration and Fair Market Value for Stamp duty (1/2 of 71.30 Lacs less 12.00 Lacs) u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) as Section was applicable from 01.04.2014 and transaction was made much before on 01.08.2012, therefore the addition made is unsustainable in law and deserves to be deleted. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the arbitrary addition of Rs. 29,65,000/- arbitrarily made by the Ld. A.O. in the income of the appellant on account of the difference in actual consideration and Fair Market Value for Stamp duty (1/2 of 71.30 Lacs less 12.00 Lacs) u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) ignoring the fact that this section is applicable only to capital assets but n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed thereby preventing appellant to make its submissions thereby making whole proceedings bad and vicious in eye of Law and contrary to the principles of natural justice and equity. 6. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs. 29,65,000/- arbitrarily made by the Ld. A.O. in the income of the appellant is without appreciating and considering the correct facts of the case, therefore the addition made by the Ld. A.O. is unsustainable in law and liable to be deleted. 7. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the impugned Assessment Orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the impugned Assessment Order ignoring the fact that the approval in terms of section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was granted mechanically by the higher authorities of the Income Tax Department as per law, therefore the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2021 for the Assessment Year under consideration and the impugned assessment order are void ab-initio, illegal and liable to be quashed. 13. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining that the purported approval under section 151 of the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elhi in sustaining the addition made by the Ld. A.O. is also unsustainable in law and deserves to be deleted. 18. That any other relief or reliefs as your honour may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that the Ld. First Appellate Authority had erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 29,65,000/-, which was made by the AO in terms of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, as this section was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2014 only, whereas the assessee had entered into the transaction on 01.08.2012 and, thus, the AO could not have legally invoked the provisions of this section. It was also submitted that although this contention was raised befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions prior to the amendment would squarely apply and, therefore, the AO could not have legally brought this transaction within the ambit of tax. Moreover, the observation of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, that the transaction was without consideration, is also incorrect, inasmuch as, it is undisputed that the assessee had parted with a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs towards consideration. I, therefore, find merit in the issue raised on behalf of the assessee and, accordingly, I set aside the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority and direct the AO to delete the impugned. 8. Since the other grounds raised in the grounds of appeal were not pressed, the same are dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the final result, the appeal of the assessee pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
