9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted from the order of the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department (in short the "AO")passed under section147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Act, date of order15/03/2023 and order passed under section 271AAC(1) of the Act, date of order 21/08/2023. 2. Both appeals pertain to issues of quantum and penalty. For the sake of convenience, ITA No. 386/Mum/2025 is taken up for adjudication first. ITA No.386/Mum/2025 2.1 The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre ["(CIT(A)"] erred in not appreciating the fact that the difference of Rs. 84,040/- in the Loan amount and consideration for the purchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. 271AAC (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the addition of Rs. 84,040/- as unexplained investments u/s. 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the purchase of immovable property. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming penalty u/s. 271AAC (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 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 the provision of Section 56 (2) (x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in appreciating the fact that the addition of Rs. 21,76,000/-difference in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal by deleting a portion of the addition made under Section 69B, reducing it to Rs. 84,040/-. However, the addition of Rs. 21,76,000/- under Section 56(2)(x) was upheld in its entirety. The Ld. AR contended that with respect to the addition of Rs. 84,040/-, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in failing to consider the bank loan availed for the purchase of the property. Further, concerning the addition under Section 56(2)(x), the assessee had requested a reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for valuation purposes, but this request was not considered, and the addition was confirmed. Aggrieved by the appellate order, the assessee has now preferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cognizance for referring the matter to the DVO with reference to Third Proviso to section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The Ld.AR prayed for setting aside the matter to the file of the Ld.AO with a direction to refer the matter to the DVO for valuation of the said property. 6. The Ld.DR vehemently argued and fully relied on the order of the revenue authorities. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully examined the documents available on record. With respect to Ground No. 1, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) considered the loan amount as Rs. 29,15,960/- received from ICICI Bank. However, the assessee contended that the actual loan amount was Rs. 30,00,000/-. Upon review, we find that there is a factual discrepancy in this regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
