2024 (6) TMI 986

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Case file perused. 2. The assessee raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : "1. The ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition Rs. 51,20,000 made by the AO u/s 69 of Income Tax Act being difference in Stamp duty valuation and actual purchase cost of immovable property. 2. The ld CIT(A) also failed to appreciate that the section 56(2)(viii) was applicable only for Individual/HUF and not to the partnership firm and section 56(2)(x) was inserted w.e.f. 1/04/2017 thus not applicable for AY 2016-17. It is prayed that addition of Rs. 5120000 may please be deleted. 3. The ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the law that neither section 69 of Income tax Act nor section 56(2)(x)/6(2)(vii) w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was inserted to apply for any person but it is effective from 01/04/2017 and thus not applicable for AY 2016-17. Hence, this difference is not taxable under any section of Income tax Act". The Appellant Assessee contends that, the difference of value as per sale deed and stamp duty valuation comes out to Rs. 51,20,000/-, which is not chargeable to tax under Section 56(2)(x) as this section of income tax is effective from 01.04.2017 and thus not applicable for AY 2016-17. In point no.- 2.4 of its submission the Appellant assessee has submitted that, the valuation of Rs. 2,26,20,000/- is absurd as the value has been taken at the rate of 23650 per square meter which is prescribed rate of ground floor and thus the rate for fir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1. Investment in building Rs. 2,26,20,000/- (stamp duty valuation as given in purchase deed Sub registrar office) 2. Amount recorded in books of account out of above Rs. 1,75,00,000/- 3. Balance unrecorded amount of investment in building Rs. 51,20,000/- In the eyes of this Appellate authority all the conditions of section 69 are satisfied for the assessing officer to make an addition on this issue, as the Assessee has made an investment of Rs. 51,20,0001- in the building which has not being recorded in its books of accounts and the assessee has not provided any explanation regarding the source of this unrecorded investment i.e. neither before the Assessing Officer nor to this Appellate Authority, despite being p....