9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnish any relevant evidence or documents during the set-aside assessment proceedings.
Addition u/s 56(2)(x) - assessee purchased the property less than stamp duty valuation - HELD THAT:- As assessee had already requested before the CIT(A) that the valuation be considered in accordance with the Third Proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. However, we find that the CIT(A) passed the order without considering this aspect. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for reconsideration of the issue. AO is directed to refer the valuation of the property to the DVO, taking into account the provisions of the Third Proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred in confirming addition of Rs. 21,76,000/- being the difference between the Market Value of the Property and the consideration of the Property Purchased as Income from Other Sources under Section 56 (2) (x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (i) Without granting any opportunity to the Appellant for substantiating his stand that the building is constructed on plot bearing CTS No. 154B, in utter violation of principal of natural justice. (ii) Without referring the Valuation to the Departmental Valuation Office (DVO) as per third Proviso to Section 56(2)(x) despite specific request made by the Appellant in violation of provisions of Section 56(2). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CTT(A) erred in directing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithout prejudice to the above, the learned CIT (A) erred in appreciating the fact that no penalty is leviable on estimated additions." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the trade and supply of building materials and conducts business under the proprietorship concern, M/s Krishna Enterprises. During the impugned assessment year, the assessee did not file a return of income. However, the assessee purchased an immovable property in the said assessment year. Based on the available information, the Ld. AO observed a discrepancy between the stamp duty valuation and the purchase value of the immovable property situated in Jogeshwari(E), Mumbai. Consequently, the difference of Rs. 21,76,000/- was added to the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... selling of property by an agreement dated 19/04/2017. In respect of rest of the amount, the assessee claimed that, he has taken loan from ICICI Bank of Rs. 30 lakhs. The Ld.AR further placed that the Ld.CIT(A) erred to consider this loan amount as Rs. 29,15,960/-, so the difference amount of Rs. 84,040/- was confirmed under section 69B of the Act. The Ld.AR prayed that the issue should be remanded to the file of the Ld.AO for further verification of the amount of Rs. 84,040/- and delete the addition sustained. 5. Related to addition under section 56(2)(x), the assessee purchased the property amount to Rs. 49lakh whereas the stamp duty valuation was Rs. 70,76,000/-. The Ld.AR prayed that the CTS No.154B of Revenue Village Majas, Jogeshwari( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) that the valuation be considered in accordance with the Third Proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. However, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order without considering this aspect. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for reconsideration of the issue. The Ld. AO is directed to refer the valuation of the property to the DVO, taking into account the provisions of the Third Proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. Accordingly ground nos. 1 & 2 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 8. Ground 3 is consequential in nature, so need not be adjudicated upon. 9. Ground 4 is general in nature. ITA No.387/Mum/2025 10. This appeal pertains to the penalty of Rs. 3,59,216/- levied under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
