9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cy in the purchase value declared by the assessee.
Consequently, the addition representing the difference between the set forth value and the stamp duty value, cannot be sustained in the impugned assessment year. Accordingly, the said addition is quashed. Further, we remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO with a direction to consider the stamp duty valuation as per the financial year of the agreement, i.e., F.Y. 2009-10, and to recompute the assessment accordingly.
Assessee should get reasonable opportunity of hearing in set aside assessment proceeding. The impugned appeal order is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Ld. AO for this limited purpose. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t order passed by the Assessing Officer is invalid in law. 4. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming addition of Rs. 97,72,517/- by the Assessing Officer, as income from other source u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of the above Grounds of Appeal." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has challenged the addition made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, which pertains to the difference between the registered value and the set forth value of Flat No. 904, Wing-H, Octacrest, Kandivali East, Mumbai. The assessee's grievance is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso argued that the delay was on the part of the builder and the letter so given by the builder for the reasons of delay is annexed at pages 85-91. The assessee has gone through an agreement which was executed on the same day, i.e. 08/11/2009 and the said agreement is duly annexed at pages 102-124. The grievance is that the Proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) is applicable, as the valuation of the property should be taken as on the date of agreement, i.e. related to F.Y. 2009-10. But the Ld. AO erroneously has considered the valuationof the property on date of registration related to AY 2017-18. The Ld.AR further placed a valuation report of the government approved valuer dated 01/02/2023 and where the valuation of the property was adopted for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the promoter. The payment was made through banking channels. Therefore, the stamp duty valuation of the property should be taken as on the date of allotment, i.e., F.Y. 2009-10. Upon perusal of the valuation report, it is noted that the valuation of the property, as determined by the registered valuer, is Rs. 1,05,00,000/-. There is no discrepancy in the purchase value declared by the assessee. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 97,72,517/-, representing the difference between the set forth value and the stamp duty value, cannot be sustained in the impugned assessment year. Accordingly, the said addition is quashed. Further, we remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO with a direction to consider the stamp duty valuation as per the finan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
