9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration, is also incorrect, inasmuch as, it is undisputed that the assessee had parted with a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs towards consideration. We find merit in the issue raised on behalf of the assessee and, accordingly, set aside the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority and direct the AO to delete the impugned. - Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. ORDER This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 11.08.2023, passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly with Shri Siddha Kumar Tripathi, half the amount of difference, i.e. Rs. 29,65,00/- (Rs.59,30,000/2) was treated as deemed income of the assessee from other sources and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the Assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed. 4. Now, the Assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the impugned order of the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9,65,000/- is liable to be deleted. 4. 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/- made by the Ld. A.O. in the impugned Assessment Order ignoring the fact that the case was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. A.O. on the ground unexplained investment, however, the addition was made under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii), therefore the impugned Assessment Order is void ab-initio and liable to be quashed and the said addition of Rs. 29,65,000/- is liable to be deleted. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Order is liable to be quashed. 9. That the Notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 is illegal, therefore the impugned Assessment Order is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. 10. That the Assessment Order passed by the Ld. A.O. is without Jurisdiction and therefore liable to be quashed. 11. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining that the assessment which was completed without following the Guidelines of the CBDT Circular and provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore the impugned order passed is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed and also the addition made by the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- arbitrarily made by the Ld. A.O. on account of allegedly treated the difference in actual consideration and Fair Market Value for Stamp duty without bringing any cogent material on record therefore the aforesaid addition is unsustainable in law and liable to be deleted. 16. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the arbitrary addition of Rs. 29,65,000/- made by the Ld. A.O. in the income of the appellant ignoring the fact that the said addition is much too high and excessive and deserves to be deleted. 17. That the Arbitrary addition of Rs. 29,65,000/- made by the Ld. A.O. in the income of the appellant is contrary to the principles of natural justice, therefore the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it could not be said that there was no consideration involved at all. The Ld. A.R. relied on a plethora of judgments of Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Courts which have been placed in the paper book and relying on the same, he argued that the addition made deserves to be deleted. 6. In response, the Ld. Sr. D.R. supported the orders of both the lower authorities and placed heavy reliance on the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority and submitted that the addition had rightly been sustained by the Ld. First Appellate Authority. 7. I have heard both the parties and have also perused the material placed on record. It is undisputed that the impugned transaction was carried out on 01.08.2012 i.e. in financi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
