TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 526
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal filed by the assessee is time barred by 11 days for which necessary petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay has been filed. The AR further submitted that the assessee could not file appeal within the time allowed under the Act, because the assessee had went to hometown to attend religious function and due to unforeseen circumstances, returned only on 12.11.2022, and thereafter appeal was filed on 15.11.2022 which caused a delay of 11 days. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor willful but for the unavoidable reasons, therefore, delay may be condoned in the interest of advancement of substantial justice. 3. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly opposing condonatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which was estimated by the registering authority as against the value declared by assessee and hence this cannot lead to disallowance u/s.56(2)(vi) of the Act. 5. The CIT(A) was not justified in concluding that as the assessee had not contested the additional stamp duty paid, the disallowance u/s.56(2)(vi) is automatically attracted and rather ought to have considered that there was no dispute on the stamp duty paid for the immoveable property and hence ought to have deleted the addition. 6. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.254300/- u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. 7. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had paid upfrot finance charges to financial institution for availing loan facility and the payment w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sustained additions made by the AO towards difference between guideline value and consideration paid for purchase of property and disallowance of expenditure u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no. 2 to 5 of assesse's appeal is addition of Rs. 8,25,000/- u/s. 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act, towards difference between guideline value and consideration paid for purchase of property. The assessee has purchased a property for consideration of Rs. 3,40,00,000/- and paid additional stamp duty of Rs. 66,000/-. The assessee was confronted with additional stamp duty paid, for which the assessee stated that the building value has be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e paid for purchase of property with any valuation report. Further, the assessee did not dispute the value determined for payment of stamp duty. Therefore, the AO has rightly made additions and their order should be upheld. 10. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. As per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act, if difference between consideration paid for purchase of property and guideline value of said property, then said difference should be treated as income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. In this case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that there is a difference between guideline value of the property and considerat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion paid for purchase of property in the present case is less than tolerance band, we are of the considered view that no addition can be made u/s. 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. Thus, we direct the AO to delete addition made towards difference in value of property u/s. 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. 12. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.6 to 9 of assessee's appeal is disallowance of certain expenditure u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of TDS. The AO was disallowed 30% of interest on other payment to the tune of Rs. 8,47,867/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. As per Form-3CD filed along with return of income for the assessment year where the tax auditor certified that TDS has not been deducted on certain payments. ....