TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Validity of IT Act Reopening Upheld, Property Purchase Cost Addition Deleted</h1> The Appellate Tribunal ITAT, Ahmedabad dismissed the challenge to the validity of reopening under section 147 of the IT Act. Regarding the addition under ... Addition u/s 69 B as additional purchase cost of his property - assessee had purchased the flat at Rs.62 lacs but Stamp Valuation Authority had valued the said flat for stamp duty purposes at Rs.63,40,500 - Held that:- AO has not brought on record any other evidence except the report of the DVO that the assessee has paid more than agreed consideration - assessee filed comparable cases of the same society or nearby area whereas the DVO has taken comparable cases of quite far away area. Therefore no addition could be made u/s 69 in the absence of any cogent evidence, thus the addition confirmed by the learned CIT(A)is deleted - in favour of assessee. Issues:Validity of reopening u/s 147 of the IT Act, Addition u/s 69 B of the Act for property purchase cost.Validity of Reopening u/s 147 of the IT Act:The appellant challenged the validity of reopening u/s 147 of the IT Act, contending that it was based on a reference to the DVO u/s 148 of the Act. However, the appellant did not press grounds No.1 and 2 of the appeal, leading to their dismissal. This issue pertained to the assessment year 2004-05 and arose from the order of the CIT(A)-I, Baroda dated 27-03-2009.Addition u/s 69 B of the Act for Property Purchase Cost:The appeal of the assessee against the addition of Rs.23,16,120/- u/s 69 B of the Act for the property purchase cost was considered. The case involved the purchase of a flat in Mumbai, with a significant difference in valuation between the purchase price and the valuation by the DVO. The AO added Rs.1,15,80,600/- to the income of the assessee as unexplained investment in the property. In the first appeal, the CIT(A) upheld part of the addition but deleted a balance amount. The appellant submitted detailed arguments and relied on various legal precedents to contest the addition. The revenue appealed the decision, but the tribunal found that no cogent evidence was presented to support the addition u/s 69 of the Act. The tribunal noted discrepancies in the valuation methods used and concluded that the addition should be deleted. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the addition was removed.In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT, Ahmedabad addressed the issues of the validity of reopening u/s 147 of the IT Act and the addition u/s 69 B of the Act for property purchase cost. The tribunal dismissed the challenge to the reopening and allowed the appeal against the addition, emphasizing the lack of sufficient evidence to support the addition under section 69 of the Act. The decision provided a detailed analysis of the valuation discrepancies and legal precedents cited by the appellant to support the deletion of the addition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
