Assessee's 7% property share qualifies for Section 56(2)(x) benefits despite not being original agreement party

The ITAT Surat reversed the CIT's revision order under Section 263 regarding the applicability of Section 56(2)(x) to co-owners who were not original parties to a property agreement. The assessee held a 7% share among ten co-owners. The CIT had denied benefits of the first and second proviso to Section 56(2)(x)(b) since the assessee wasn't party to the original agreement and made no direct payment. However, the ITAT found that part consideration was paid by family members and close relatives of the assessee. Following the Mumbai ITAT precedent in Sulochana Saijan Modi, the tribunal held that the AO's assessment accepting returned income was not erroneous, thus the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 were not satisfied.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's (PCIT) order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Examination of the applicability of Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Assessment of the payment and agreement conditions under Section 56(2)(x)(b) provisos.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of the PCIT's Order under Section 263
The appeals concern the orders of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Surat-1, who set aside the assessment orders passed by the National e-Assessment Centre Delhi under section 143(3) r.w.s 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The PCIT invoked jurisdiction under section 263, deeming the original assessment orders erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

Issue 2: Examination of the Applicability of Section 56(2)(x)
The PCIT observed that the assessee, along with others, purchased immovable property valued by the Stamp Valuation Authority at Rs. 19.48 crores against a consideration of Rs. 7.63 crores. The PCIT noted that the assessee had a 7% share and that the difference in valuation attracted Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The PCIT argued that the assessee was not a party to the original agreement to sale dated 30.08.2010 and did not make any payment by cheque before the agreement date, thus not eligible for the benefits under Section 56(2)(x).

Issue 3: Assessment of Payment and Agreement Conditions
The assessee contended that the purchase was made based on an agreement dated 30.08.2010, and part payment was made by co-owners via cheque, which should allow the benefit under the provisos to Section 56(2)(x)(b). The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had examined the issue during the scrutiny assessment and accepted the returned income after considering the details provided. The Tribunal referenced a similar case (Sulochana Saijan Modi Vs. ITO) where the benefit was granted when one of the joint holders made the payment.

Judgment:
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not committed any error in accepting the returned income, as the part payment by co-owners was considered. The PCIT's order was found to be based on a wrong assumption of facts. The appeals were allowed, and the PCIT's orders were quashed. The Tribunal followed the principle of consistency and granted relief in both appeals.

Conclusion:
The assessee's appeals were allowed, and the orders under section 263 by the PCIT were set aside. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessment orders were not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue, as the conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met.

---