Assessment Officer lacks jurisdiction to make independent addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) after accepting investment source explanation

The ITAT Raipur allowed the appeal and quashed the AO's order under sections 144 and 147. The AO had reopened assessment believing the assessee's property investment was from undisclosed income. However, the AO accepted the assessee's explanation with documentary evidence that investment was from disclosed sources and made no addition regarding the investment source. Instead, the AO made an independent addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) for the difference between stamp duty value and purchase consideration. The ITAT held that since the AO didn't make any addition regarding the original basis for reopening (investment source), he lacked jurisdiction to make the independent addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b), having traversed beyond his jurisdictional scope.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 32,29,550/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Legality of the reassessment order.
3. Consideration of the value estimated by the Assistant Valuation Officer.

Summary:

1. Addition of Rs. 32,29,550/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b):
The A.O. observed that the assessee purchased a property for Rs. 10,74,150/-, while the stamp duty value was Rs. 43,03,700/-. The A.O. added the difference of Rs. 32,29,550/- to the assessee's income u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, rejecting the DVO's valuation of Rs. 15,08,510/- due to technical defects. The Tribunal found that the A.O. had not made any addition regarding the source of investment, which was the basis for reopening the case, thus invalidating the jurisdiction for making the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b).

2. Legality of the Reassessment Order:
The reassessment was initiated based on the belief that the assessee's investment in the property was from undisclosed income. However, the A.O. accepted the assessee's explanation that the investment was from disclosed sources. Since no addition was made on the basis of the reasons recorded for reopening, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment order for lack of valid jurisdiction.

3. Consideration of the Value Estimated by the Assistant Valuation Officer:
The CIT(A) did not adopt the DVO's valuation of Rs. 15,08,510/- due to perceived defects in the report. The Tribunal did not address the merits of this valuation, as the reassessment order itself was quashed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order dated 28.12.2019 for lack of valid jurisdiction, allowing the appeal of the assessee. The grounds of appeal regarding the merits of the case were left open, and the general ground was dismissed as not pressed. The order was pronounced on 28th May, 2024.

---