2024 (10) TMI 658

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...."], which in turn arose from the assessment order dated 27/12/2017 passed under section 143(3) by the Assessing Officer, for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - "The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other - On facts and in law 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing appellant's appeal and confirming the action of the AO of making addition of Rs. 65,42,000/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and Rs. 1,53,91,000/- on the presumption that the said amount must have been received by the Appellant without providing reasonable opportunity to the appellant and without verifying whether the notices were served to the appellant or not. 2. The lea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hence suggested the Appellant to seek assistance from other counsel. b. The Appellant's case was handled by one Mr. Bhavesh Chitaliya, who was affiliated with CA Manish Ladage's firm. However, Mr. Chitaliya resigned from the firm and forgot to handover the relevant papers to the appropriate consultant and hence, there was a delay in compiling and consolidating all the requisites documents of the Appellant. c. The Appellant lacked established contacts within the legal fraternity which created significant hindrances in approaching an appropriate ITAT counsel. Fortunately, the Appellant's distant cousin, Mr. Sandeep Pawar, a registered clerk with the High Court, was able to recommend the present counsel. Subsequently, the prese....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and for the year under consideration filed his return of income on 30/03/2017 disclosing a total income of Rs. 1,47,090/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold an immovable property at Andheri, Mumbai for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,81,00,000/-, however, the stamp duty valuation of the said property was Rs. 3,46,42,000/-.Vide letter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....no.1 objects to adding 6542000 u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) being difference of stamp duty valuation of 34642000 of land and settlement amount of Rs. 28100000. The assessee did not have any valid explanation for not invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b). As per the agreement the balance amount of Rs. 15391000 has not been paid to the seller whereas it was to be paid within 2 years from the date of conveyance deed, the contention of the assessee is considered but not accepted as the agreement dated 20.10.2014 for actual sale consideration of Rs. 28100000. The assessee received the amount in cash as per confirmation deed. The stamp duty valuation of the said property is Rs. 34642000/-. There is a difference of Rs. 6542000/- (Rs. 34642000-Rs.....