9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1083X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rence exceeds 10%, i.e. 10.01%. The Ld. AR contended that any excess over 10% should be added
We hold that the provision of section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) has retrospective effect and is applicable to the impugned assessment year. Accordingly, we uphold the view adopted by the Ld. CIT(A) in reducing the addition under section 56(2)(x).
With respect to section 56(2)(x)(b)(B), we remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for allowing the assessee the incremental differences as per the said Act for the alleged properties. In the case of Unit No. 103, the excess over 10% shall be considered for addition. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) received a valuation report dated 23/03/2022 (No. DVO-1/mum/CGT/2021-22/402) and, in accordance with section 56(2)(x), the DVO valued the property as pertaining to the financial year 2009-10 since the property was allotted on 30/03/ 2010, and payment was made through banking channels. The difference between the DVO's valuation and the set forth value, amounting to Rs. 81,19,625/-, was considered for addition. The Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to this amount, and the assessee's appeal was partially allowed. Both the revenue and the assessee, being aggrieved by the appeal order, have filed appeals before this court. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the documents on record. The Ld. DR cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; 9,00,19,625 12,10,53,000 9,00,19,625 81,19,625 4. The Ld.AR further argued that the issue is squarely covered by the order of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Balkrishna Venkappa Bhandary v. DICT (2024) 169 taxmann.com 76 (Mumbai Trib.). The relevant paragraphs 7.3 to 7.5 are reproduced as below:- "7.3. It is submission of the Ld.AR that, the receipt placed at page 130 of the paper book also reveals the first booking amount having paid on 20/06/2016 issued by the builder and therefore the value as on the date of making the first payment is to be considered for the purpose of computation of income u/s. 56(2)(X)b of the Act. The Ld.AR also emphasized that as on the date of first payment the stamp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T-Mumbai in the case of Glory Shipmanagement Private Limited vs CIT (Appeals) ITA No.3149/MUM/2023, date of pronouncement 30/01/2024and also the decision of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT-Kolkata in the case of Sandeep Kumar Poddar v. ITO, Wared-44(1), Kolkata ITA No.484/Kol/2022date of pronouncement 13/03/2023. 6. Upon reviewing the said chart, we find that, with respect to Unit No. 103, the incremental difference exceeds 10%, i.e. 10.01%. The Ld. AR contended that any excess over 10% should be added. In our considered view, we hold that the provision of section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) has retrospective effect and is applicable to the impugned assessment year. Accordingly, we uphold the view adopted by the Ld. CIT(A) in reducing the addition under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
