Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2014 (7) TMI 807

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ompleted the assessment u/s. 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 determining the total income at Rs. 47,40,860, by making the following additions: (a) Addition towards deposits - Rs. 9,25,860 (b) Addition u/s. 69 - Rs. 1,36,000 (c) Addition u/s. 68 - Rs. 35,00,080 3. On appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 9,25,860 on account of unexplained deposits in bank account. 4. With respect to the addition of Rs. 1,36,000 made by the AO on the ground that the amount represented difference in the sale price and the value shown as per the records of the Sub-Registrar, the facts are that the assessee sold a flat measuring 680 square feet (sft) for a consideration of Rs. 5 lakhs and as per the Sub-Registrar records the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of Rs. 1,36,000" 5. On further appeal before the CIT(A), the learned counsel for the assessee argued that section 50C of the Act is a deeming provision and cannot be applicable to section 69 of the Act. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the order of the ITAT Hyderabad in the case of DCIT vs. Compage Computers Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1734/Hyd/ 2013 wherein it had been held that provisions of section 50C are applicable in the hands of the seller and not in the hands of the purchaser and, therefore, no addition can be made in the hands of the purchaser. 6. The CIT(A) held that the assessee has produced the sale deed according to which Sri Ravi Saraff, the assessee herein, is the seller. Further the CIT(A) held that the assessee ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ions, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act. [Explanation 1].-For the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer" shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). [Explanation 2.-For the purposes of this section, the expression "assessable" means the price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty.] 9. According to the section 50C(2), the AO may refer the valu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he provisions of the Act. In our considered view, the assessing officer should not have invoked the provisions of section SOC of the Act without referring the matter to the Valuation Cell. It is also clear from the assessment order that the assessing officer did not consider any of the submissions made by the assessee before adopting the SRO rates as deemed sale consideration. Hence, the action of the assessing officer cannot be sustained. Even on merits, we agree with the observations made by the CIT CA) with regard to the justification for the sale consideration being less than the rates fixed by the SRO. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the SRO rates adopted by the assessing officer as deemed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessee had not produced any details before the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) noted that at that point of time the creditor was alive and the assessee did not produce any details giving the full address of the creditor. The CIT(A) observed that the creditworthiness of that person and the genuineness of the transaction were not at all proven and at that point even the full identity was not placed before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the CIT(A) observed that the basic onus was not discharged. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify whether the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs represents the carry forward from earlier years and if this contention is found to be correct, then that amount will have to be deleted from the addition made and t....