TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Assessing Officer (in short, 'AO') on 25.03.2022 by making addition of Rs. 48,11,989/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT, Valsad has erred in law and on fact to revise appellant's assessment u/s 263 of the IT Act, ignoring the fact and law that even AO's reopening of assessment for AY.2018-19is contrary to the provisions of the law. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT, Valsad has erred in law and on fact to revie appellant's assessment u/s 263 of the IT Act, ignoring the fact and law that even AO's reopening of assessment for AY.2018-19 is contrary to the provisions of the law. 3. The appeal filed by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled to explain sufficient cause for the delay; hence, delay should not be condoned. 5. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and note that there is short delay of 27 days. We note that assessee was not negligent but due to lack of advice of the earlier tax consultant, the delay has occurred in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The reasons given in the affidavit would constitute sufficient cause for delay in filing this appeal. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 6. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income for AY.2017-18 on 31.07.2018, declaring total income at Rs. 3,45,749/-. The appellant was carrying on retail business of onion and potatoes under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he entire value of SVA of Rs. 48,11,939/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. The appellant submitted that neither the provisions of section 56(2)(x) nor section 69 can be applied because the impugned property was booked with Rose Developers Private Limited on 09.11.2011 by paying Rs. 1,00,000/- as earnest money / part payment through cheque No.191231 of Bank of India, Vapi. Therefore, value of the flat was fixed in the year 2011-12 (AY.2012-13) but registration was made on 30.03.2017. Therefore, there is a difference in the SVA value and value mentioned in the registration deed. The first payment of purchase of the flat was on 09.11.2011 and thereafter, all payments were made through cheques in instalments. No payment was made in AY.2017-18. It was a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s 263 of the Act. He also directed to AO to grant reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard. 9. Aggrieved by the order of PCIT, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee has filed a paper book and relied on various decisions to contend that provisions of section 263 cannot be invoked in the present case because the first appeal before the CIT(A) is pending, in which the issue of revision is also included. The ld. AR further submitted that the order passed u/s 147 by the AO is not sustainable in absence of any payment made for purchase of the flat during the year under consideration. He has referred to pages 5 to 7 and 75 to 93 of the paper book to support his....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fference between the value as per the registered deed and that as per SVA amounting to Rs. 14,93,393/- should have been added u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act and the amount as per the sale deed of Rs. 33,18,000/- should have been added u/s 69 of the Act. This is so because assessee failed to explain the nature and source of investment with necessary supporting evidences. We find that the action of the PCIT is in accordance with clear statutory provisions of the Act. Clause (x) of Section 56(2) expands the scope of income from other sources w.e.f. AY.2017-18 and subsequent year to provide that receipt of the sum of money or property by any person without consideration or for inadequate consideration in excess of Rs. 50,000/- shall be chargeable to t....