AI Drafter 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 765
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nition of Capital Assets. 2. The ld. AO made addition U/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of Rs. 1,61,44,679/- ignoring the facts of litigation on the property matter and restriction by the Highway Authority of India on any construction, merely by accepting DLC rate provided the Registrar. 3. The ld. AO made addition U/s 68B of Rs. 46,00,000/- ignoring the fact and by ignoring the well explained sources of investigation made by the assessee. 4. The ld AO made addition U/s 69C Rs. 13,74,865/- ignoring the fact and adopting own assumption." 2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the return of income was e-filed on 30/07/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 1,96,320/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Necessary notices were issued and served upon the assessee. The A.O. held in the assessment order that the assessee received commission income from property dealing amounting to Rs. 2,38,458/- and also received pension of Rs. 38,067/-. Income from bank interest was also declared at Rs. 44,792/-. Returned income of Rs. 1,96....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SSETS. As per The A.O.'s order Dated 28.12.2016 Paget and order of the Learned CIT (Appeals) First, Jaipur, Page 10 [Paper Book Page and four purchase deed pages 44 to 120 respectively]' Detail of Purchased Agricultural lands is as follows: S. No. Date Details of the property purchased Consideration Paid (Rs.) Stamp Duty Value (Rs.) 1 24.05.2013 Land in Khasra number 950/2 & 953, totalling 2 bigha from Sh. Ram Singh S/o Sh. Kanha Ram 11,00,000/- 27,83,000/- 2 10.05.2013 Land in Khasra number 950/2 & 953, totalling 2 bigha from Sh. Nand Singh S/o Sh. Kanha Ram 4,00,000/- 27,83,000/- 3 24.05.2013 Land in Khasra number 950/2 & 953, totalling 2 bigha from Sh. Gopal Singh S/o Sh. Kanha Ram 4,00,000/- 27,83,000/- 4 15.07.2013 Land in Khasra number 6447, 6448, 6467, 6469, 7602, 7603, 7604, totalling 2.4016 hectare from Sh. Banna Rain S/o Sh. Dev Karan Gurjar 45,00,000/- 1,41,95,679/- Total Rs. 64,00,000/- Rs. 2,25,44,679/- (A) Thus it is well established FACT that all four purchases were AGRICULTURAL LANDS exhibiting KHASARA NUMBERS as per land Revenue record a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....property can be availed. Instead of so negative affected, the cost of land, to take at higher value is against the act as well also against the law of social justice. Relevant Paper proving litigation etc., are submitted enclosed here with. (Pages 121 to 138) (B) Restrictions for construction due to Property situated at highway: Location of the property is at Mega Highway Mauzmabad, District, Jaipur. Highway authorities of India has imposed restrictions to make construction on this land. Prohibition of any construction is imposed by the highway authority of India. Copy of Papers exhibiting such restrictions are submitted enclosed here with. Due to these reasons, No DLC rate can be availed and there is considerable difference between the DLC and Purchased value. Therefore, the Addition Rs. 1,61,44,679 /- made by the learned Assessing officer should be deleted having considered the grounds of the Assessee;s Appeal. (pages 139 to 142) 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has vehemently supported the orders of the revenue authorities and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has passed a well-reasoned order discussing all the material facts. 7. We have considered the rival ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(i) ...................... (vii) Where an individual or a Hindu Undivided Family receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after the first day of October, 2009- (a) ........................ (b) any immovable property- (i) without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property; (ii) for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration. Provided that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement may be taken for the purposes of this sub-clause. Provided further that the said proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration referred to therein, or a part thereof, has been paid by any mode other than cash on or before the date of the agreement for the transfer of such immovable property" 2.2. It is clear from the above provision th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icable on purchase of immovable property, if the consideration is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding Rs. 50,000/-. It is also mentioned that in such cases, the difference between stamp duty valuation of the property and actual consideration shown will be treated as 'income from other sources'. The above conditions are squarely applicable in the case of the appellant, therefore, the AO was justified in invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the additional ground raised by the appellant that the above provisions do not apply on purchaser of the property is dismissed. (iv) The attention is also invited to the second proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, which reads as under: "Provided that where the stamp duty value of immovable property as referred to in sub-clause (b) is disputed by the assessee on grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 50C, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of such property to a Valuation Officer. and the provisions of section 50C and sub-section (15) of section 155 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the stamp duty value of such prope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he DVO is expert in valuation of the property and as the valuation is based on scientific method, the same cannot be doubted. Considering, the above valuation, the difference in value recorded in the registered document and the value determined by the DVO amounting to Rs. 1,45,74,660/- is treated as 'income from other sources' u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The addition made by the AO is restricted to Rs. 1,45,74,660/-." 8. From perusal of the record we observed that the assessee had purchased four immovable properties during the year under consideration. The properties were purchased far below the value determined by the stamp valuation authorities for the purposes of charging stamp duty. The AO invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and made the addition being the difference between value shown in the registered document and value determined by stamp valuation authorities. 9. We further observed that during the appellate proceedings, it was submitted by the assessee that the properties were purchased below the fair market value as litigation was pending regarding legal title in Session's Court, Sambhar, Jaipur. It was also mentioned t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nand Singh S/o Sh. Kanha Ram Rs. 4,00,000/- Rs. 4,00,000/- paid in cash on 06.04.95. 3. 24.05.13 Land in khasra number 950/2 & 953, totaling 2 bigha from Sh. Gopal Singh S/o Sh. Kanha Ram R. 4,00,000/- Rs. 4,00,000/- paid in cash on 06.04.95. 4. 15.07.13 Land in khasra number 6447, 6448, 6449, 467, 6469,7602, 7603, 7604 totaling 2.4016 hectare from Sh. Banna Ram Sh. Dev Karan Gurjar Rs. 45,00,000/- i. Rs. 20,00,000/- paid by cheque by Narsingh construction on behalf of Assessee on 05.06.13. (Page No. 144 to 146) ii. Rs. 9,00,000 paid by cheque by Narsingh Construction on behalf of Assessee on 05,06.13. (Page No. 144 to 146) iii. Rs. 10,00,000/- in cash from SB account of Vishnu Joshi on 22.07.13. (Page No. 147) iv. Rs. 5,00,000 in cash from SB account of Vishnu joshi on 16.09.13. (Page No. 147) 5. 10.05.13 24.05.13 & 15.07.13 Registry charges of all above four properties Rs. 13,64,865/- Rs. 13,00,000/- in cash by making withdrawals from partnership firm M/s Shree PVJ Corporation.(Page No 25 & 26) Total Rs. 77,64,865/- (A) For Property as per chart no. 1, 2 and 3; There....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....placed on record. From perusal of the record we noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue in detail in para 3.2.2 of his order and the same is as under: "3.2.2 Determination: (i) The appellant claimed to make payment of Rs. 64,00,000/- for the purchase of above properties. The AO examined the source of above investment and held that Rs. 46,00,000/- is investment from undisclosed sources. The relevant portion of the assessment order is reproduced as under: "3. Addition u/s. 698 of IT. Act 1961:- During the course of assessment proceedings, the A/R was asked to furnish explanation regarding source of investment made in above mentioned properties. In this regard, the A/R furnished details vide replies dated 22.07.2016 and 16.12.2016, which are placed on record. The A/R also submitted a chart explaining the source of investment made as under- Sl. No Date Details of the property purchased Consideration Paid Source 1. 24.05.13 Land in khasra number 950/2 & 953, totaling 2 bigha from Sh. Ram Singh S/o Sh. Kanha Rain Rs. 11,00,000/- i. Rs. 8,00,000 paid in cash on 06.04.95 ii. Rs. 3,00,000/- paid by ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The A/R submitted vide reply dated 23.12.2016 that "although registry of land is executed in Year 2013-14 but originally it was entered by an agreement in year 1995. Copy of agreement made between both the parties is submitted enclosed herewith." The agreements submitted by the NR were perused but it is found that agreements are not between the seller party and assessee. The agreements are between seller party and M/s Baba R.N. Gaur Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur through assessee Shri Vishnu Kumar Joshi as President/Mantri/A/R of the Society. According to these agreements, the lands mentioned therein were sold by the sellers to M/s Baba R.N. Gaur Grih Ninnan Sahakari Samiti Ltd. and not to assessee Sh. Vishnu Kumar Joshi. Further, these agreements are unregistered and not signed by the assessee Sh. Vishnu Kumar Joshi. Therefore, there is no legal sanctity of these agreements. Moreover, these agreements do not prove in any way that these lands were purchased by assessee on 06.4.95 and cash payments of Rs. 8,00,000/-, Rs. 4,00,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- were made by the assessee on 06.04.95 to the seller of the land. Therefore, these agreements are of no he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te of purchase made by the assessee. Further, when the seller has stated in the agreement that he received entire payment in cash on 11.12.13 then how M/s Narsingh Construction could have made payment to seller by cheque on 05.06.13. These facts proved that the claim of assessee regarding payment of Rs. 29,00,000/- made by M/s Narsingh Construction is wrong and non acceptable. The claim of assessee regarding payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- by making cash withdrawal from the saving bank account is accepted and accordingly, out of total payment of Rs. 45,00,000/-. source of payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- is found explained and balance payment of Rs. 30,00,000/- is treated as unexplained investment in the property and added to the income of the assessee u/s. 698 of I. T. Act, 1961." (ii) During the appellate proceedings, the appellant again reiterated the same argument that in respect of property No. 1, 2 and 3, cash of Rs. 16,00,000/- was paid much before the actual registry of the above properties. It was claimed that Rs. 16,00,000/- was paid on 06.04.1995 to the seller in cash while the registry of the above property was done during FY 2013-14. The AO has examined....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....investment from undisclosed sources. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee reiterated the same argument that in respect of property No. 1, 2 and 3, cash of Rs. 16,00,000/- was paid much before the actual registry of the properties. It was claimed that Rs. 16,00,000/- was paid on 06.04.1995 to the seller in cash while the registry of the property was done during FY 2013-14. ) As far as property No. 4 is concerned, it was submitted that the cheque issued for Rs. 45,00,000/- was dishonored and later on, cheques were issued from the bank account of M/s Narsingh Construction amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/- on 05.06.2013 and Rs. 9,00,000/- on 10.06.2013. It was also contended before the AO and during appellate proceedings that the above amount was given by the assessee to M/s Narsingh Construction on earlier dates. However, no details regarding earlier payments given to M/s Narsing Construction was provided either during assessment proceeding or appellate proceedings. The nature and source of earlier payment to M/s Narsingh Constructions remained unexplained. In the assessment order, the AO has specifically pointed out that an agreement was executed between the parties under the na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue in detail in para 3.3.2 of his order and the same is as under: "3.3.2 Determination: (i) The appellant paid registration charges for Rs. 13,64,865/- in respect of above properties. The AO verified the source of above expenditure and held that there is no explained source for the above expenditure. The relevant portion of the assessment order is reproduced as under: "4. Addition u/s. 69C of I. T. Act 1961:- The assessee made payment of registry charges of above properties amounting to Rs. 13,74,865/- in cash. The A/R submitted vide reply dated 23.12.16 that source of payment is Rs. 13,00,000/- received in cash from Shri PVJ Corporation on 06.12.2013. The reply of the AIR is considered but not found acceptable. It is observed rat registration of these properties was made on 10.05.2013, 24.05.2013 & 5 17.2013. It is apparent that payment of registration charges was made on before the date of registration but the A/R has claimed that payment was made out of Rs. 13,00,000/-received in cash from Shree PVJ Corporation on 06.12.2013. When the assessee made payment of registration charges on 10.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orrect. The assessee also accepted the above fact during the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee also failed to bring any explanation regarding source of making expenditure for registration expenses. No new facts or circumstances have been brought before us by the ld AR in order to controvert or rebut the factual findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, we see no reason to interfere into or deviate from the findings so recorded by the ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the same. 20. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th July, 2021. ============= Document 1 "%%------à¤à¥‚मि मà¥à¤ ईकरारकरà¥à¤¤à¤¾ ने कà¥à¤°à¥‡à¤¤à¤¾ विषà¥à¤£à¥ कà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤° जोषी उमà¥à¤° 54 वरà¥à¤· पà¥à¤¤à¥à¤° सà¥à¤µà¤£à¥ शà¥à¤°à¥€ सीताराम जोषी जाति बà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤¹à¤®à....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....°à¥‚बरू गवाहो के समकà¥à¤· गिनकर पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤ªà¥à¤¤ कर लिये है à¤à¤µà¤‚ मà¥à¤² चैक विषà¥à¤£à¥à¤œà¥€ को संà¤à¤²à¤¾ दिय गया है à¤à¤µ उकà¥à¤¤ चैक à¤à¤µà¤‚ उपरोकà¥à¤¤ बेचान की गई à¤à¥‚मि बाबत किसी पà¥à¤°à¤•à¤¾à¤° का कोई बकाया राषि शेष नही बची है बलà¥à¤•à¤¿ समà¥à¤ªà¥‚रà¥à¤£ विकà¥à¤°à¤¯ पà¥à¤°à¤¤à¤¿à¤«à¤² राषि चà¥à¤•à¤¤à¥€ पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤ªà¥à¤¤ कर à....