TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1413
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal return of income filed by the Assessee declaring total income at "Rs. Nil" on dated 31.10.2015, was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act, on the reason/information flagged by Directorate of System on INSIGHT PORTAL uploaded by DDIT (Inv.)-(4)(1), Thane to the effects that the Assessee had purchased an immovable property of Rs. 22,06,000/-. 2.1 On analysis of the information, it was seen that the Assessee had purchased the shop in Janki Heights Bhayandar for a consideration of Rs. 8,09,600/-, whereas market value of the same was Rs. 22,06,000/- and therefore the AO construed that the Assessee has not offered the difference of consideration as envisaged in section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and consequently issued the notice dated 31.03.2021 u/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....500000 4 Amount Transferred from M/s Sonam Builders 971487 22.12.2006 100000 2.4 The Assessee, therefore on the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the details filed, claimed that agreement value of the property was Rs. 8,09,600/- whereas stamp duty value was Rs. 22,06,000/- and therefore the Assessee has duly offered the amount of Rs. 13,96,400/- being difference between the stamp duty value and the agreement value, for the taxation as per the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, by filing his return of income on dated 10.08.2021 in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. 3. The AO on verifying the return of income filed in response to section 148 of the Act, though accepted the said claim of the Assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f income by offering difference of consideration amount of Rs. 13,96,400/- and the same was accepted by the AO. For the source of purchase consideration of Rs. 8,09,600/-, the appellant has stated that the amount was paid to the builder i.e M/s. S V Developers during the FY 2006-07 through M/s. Sonam Builders in which the appellant was partner having 40% share.) Further, the appellant stated that an agreement for sale cum development executed between J.B. Construction with SV Developers and M/s. Sonam Builders on 18.05.2010. As per the agreement the incomplete building was to be demolished and reconstruct a multi-storeyed building by loading extra FSI by way of TDR at the cost of J B Construction.) Further, the appellant stated that out of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y documentary evidences in support of his claim during the assessment proceedings as well as appeal proceedings. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 41,664/- added to the returned income by the AO is confirmed in the absence of any documentary evidence. Accordingly, the ground no.2 is dismissed. 5. The Assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before this Court. The Assessee controverted the findings of the authorities below, whereas the Ld. D.R. supported the orders passed by the authorities below. 6. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The Assessee had purchased the property under consideration of Rs. 8,09,600/- and before the authorities below has demonstrated that he is a 40% partner in M/s. Sonam Builders, who ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount of being difference between the deductions claimed under chapter VIA of the Act in the original return of income and return of income filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Assessee has demonstrated that the amounts of Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 2700/- and Rs. 10,000/- have been claimed u/s 80C of the Act as life insurance premium and u/s 80G of the Act and u/s 80TTA of the Act respectively . 8. This Court observe that originally the Assessee had claimed the deduction under chapter VIA of the Act to the tune of Rs. 71,036/- only mainly on the reason that the total income as per original return was Rs. 71,036/- itself. The AO made the addition under consideration on the reason that there is difference in the claim of the Ass....