2025 (4) TMI 1558

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....017-18. 2. The assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 32,78,500/- u/s. 56(2)(vi)(b) of the Act being the difference between the stamp duty value and actual sale consideration, where it is alleged that the ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the objection of the assessee that the property was in 'no development zone' and with no access to municipal roads and therefore the valuation as per the ready reckoner rate ought not be applied. The assessee has also challenged reopening of the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act. The revenue has challenged the deletion of addition of Rs. 87,93,925/- being the unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act in respect of the purchase of immovable property, where it is alleged that the assessee is said to have ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... difference in the stamp duty value and the sale consideration and deleting the addition made u/s. 69A of the Act, on the ground that the assessee has filed the relevant documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness and source of the investment which was not explained before the ld. AO due to paucity of time. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), both the assessee as well as revenue are in cross appeals before us. 6. The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee commenced the arguments on the legal grounds challenging the reopening of the assessment to be invalid in the eyes of law on various grounds. Before getting into the merits of the case, we deem it fit to decide the legal grounds ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tamp duty value of Rs. 32,78,500/-, the ld. AO proceeded to make an addition on the unexplained investment u/s. 69A of the Act amounting to Rs. 87,93,925/- both aggregating to Rs. 1,20,72,425/- and stated that the said amount is much above the threshold limit specified in the Act. The ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authority. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The moot issue to be decided prima facie in this case is whether the reassessment proceeding initiated by the ld. AO is valid. Upon considering the rival contentions, it is observed that the ld. AO has reopened the assessee's case based on the information received from SRO office that the assessee has entered into a transact....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... relevant assessment year has elapsed can be made by the ld. AO, when he is in possession of books of accounts or other documents or evidence which disclose that the income chargeable to tax either in the form of an asset, an expenditure in respect of a transaction or in relation to an event or occasion or any entry in the books of account is found to have escaped assessment which amounts to Rs. 50 lacs or more. Without doubt the provisions are framed in such a manner that the ld. AO can reopen/reassess a case beyond 3 years from the end of the A.Y. only when the income which as escaped assessment is Rs. 50 lacs or more. The provision is clearly worded without any ambiguity per se, where the threshold limit of income which has escaped asses....