9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value of the property is only Rs. 38,44,884/-. However, the matter was referred to the DVO and DVO has valued at Rs. 42,51,700/-. Admittedly the registration value is Rs. 60,15,759/-. Therefore, no hesitation to come to the conclusion that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by AO as well as the ld. CIT(Appeals) and also, no infirmity in the valuation made by the DVO. Therefore, there is no valid reason in the arguments of assessee saying that DVO has not properly valued the property. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are liable to be dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of Rs. 4,06,816/- by treating the said amount as income from other sources, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified and invoking section 56(2)(x) of the Act is not applicable in the case of the appellant". 5. I have heard both the sides. The assessee also filed the written submission. It was the submission of the assessee that the assessee and her husband entered into an agreement with the builders dated 5th September, 2015 for purchase of flat bearing no. 402, 4th Floor, Keshav Apartment, Varanasi for a consideration of Rs. 39,94,884/-, which includes Rs. 2,50,000/- for one car parking and Rs. 1,50,000/- for transformer and generator. He further submitted that at the time of agreement, cash of Rs. 11,000/- was paid on 08.12.2014. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udice to the assessee". Therefore, the addition of Rs. 4,06,816/- based on fair market value as against the cost of construction is unsustainable in law for the reason that DM Circle rate cannot be equated with the cost of construction. Alternatively, he submitted that the limit of 5% has been enhanced to 10% by Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 01.04.2021. The provision is a procedural provision and it will accordingly apply retrospectively and thus the date of its applicability w.e.f. 01.04.2021 corresponding to assessment year 2021-22 would directly fetch of the principles of purposive construction to be given to a procedural provision as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Vatika Township reported in (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o reason to believe that the DVO has not valued the property correctly. After considering the submissions of both the parties, I am of the view that when the registration value of the property is Rs. 60,15,959/-, the burden lies on the assessee to establish that the value of the property mentioned in the Sale Deed is true and correct. In this case, the assessee has not given even any valid evidence to believe that the value of the property is only Rs. 38,44,884/-. However, the matter was referred to the DVO and DVO has valued at Rs. 42,51,700/-. Admittedly the registration value is Rs. 60,15,759/-. Therefore, after considering the above facts and circumstances, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that there is no infirmity in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
