TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 784
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for the A.Y. 2013-14. 2. Relevant facts for adjudication of the 1st issue/addition are that the Assessee had purchased a property i.e. flat no. 1102, 11th floor, A-wing, La Vista, Sector 10, Karghar, Navi Mumbai consisting of carpet area 91.83 sqm., on dated 10.01.2008 on a lump sum consideration of Rs. 44,46,750/- and paid the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as advance. Seller party i.e. M/s. Ravechi Delivering Dreams issued an allotment letter dated 10.01.2008 in this regard and thereafter in pursuance to the allotment letter, the Assessee paid the remaining amount in instalment as tabulated below: Date Amount Account debited to 11.01.08 500000 Ravech....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to why the market value of the said property arrived at by the stamp duty authorities to the tune of Rs. 90,13,000/-, should not be considered as the actual price of the property for proposed addition u/s 69B of the Act. 5. Simultaneously the AO also referred the valuation of the property to DVO-I, Mumbai vide reference letter dated 25.02.2016. 6. The Assessee in the meantime in response to the show cause notice dated 07.03.2016, filed its reply substantiating the value of the property to the tune of Rs. 44,46,750/- as correct. 7. Thereafter, the valuation officer vide valuation report dated 18.03.2016 affirmed the value of the subjected property to the tune of Rs. 90,13,000/- as on the date of registration, as determined by the st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... considering all the aspect and while arriving at the value of Rs. 90,13,000/-, thus the Assessee's contentions are not acceptable. Hence, the provisions of section 69B are invokable. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 45,66,250/- being difference between the consideration shown in the allotment letter dated 10.01.2008 and the stamp duty value as determined by the stamp duty valuation authority as well as by the DVO, is made". 9. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition as well before the Ld. Commissioner, however, of no avail, as the Ld. Commissioner affirmed the aforesaid addition. 10. We have given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the provisions of the Act i.e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntained by the Assessee for any source of income and the Assessee offers no explanation about such excess amount or the explanation offered by him is not satisfactory, then the excess amount may be deemed to be income of the Assessee. Herein, in the instant case, the Assessee has duly explained the transaction by producing the relevant allotment letter and the payment schedule starting from 11.01.2008 till 27.05.2009 and thereafter up to 06.09.2013 demonstrated that initially the property was allotted vide allotment letter dated 10.01.2008 and thereafter the entire sale consideration of Rs. 44,46,750/- was paid in installments and ultimately formal purchase agreement was registered on 28.03.2013 as per agreement allotment letter and complet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act by sidelining the relevant provisions of the Act, as applicable. 15. Further admittedly, the DVO has adopted the value of the property as determined by the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority, as on the date of executing formal purchase agreement dated 28.03.2013. 16. Both the authorities below have accepted the said valuation report by sidelining the exceptions carved out under the provisions of section 50C and 56(2)(vii) & of the Act, as well as the explanation given by the Assessee and/or discharging the onus cast u/s 69B of the Act. 17. Thus on the aforesaid analyzations, the addition in any case, is un-sustainable and therefore the same is deleted. 18. Coming to the 2^nd issue/addition which pertains to the addition of Rs. ....