TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1327
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating the same as difference between the Stamp Duty Value and purchase consideration and added the same to the income of the assessee. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in charging interest 234A, 234B and 234C of the act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add further ground or to amend or alter the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing." 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 25.10.2018 declaring income of Rs. 14,50,170/-. Case was selected for scrutiny. During assessment, the assessing officer noted that assessee purchased flat no. 403, 4th ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the provision of section 56(2)(x) held that there is the difference between the value shown by the assessee and the value determined by Stamp Valuation Authority. The second proviso of section 56(2)(x) is applicable where part consideration is paid by way of cheque or demand draft is paid. No consideration or part thereof is paid by assessee at the time of agreement. The assessing officer accordingly brought difference of 1/3rd vis-a-vis the value declared by assessee and his Co-owner and the value determined by Stamp Valuation Authority for the purpose of registration of transaction. 3. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detail written....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epresentative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned senior departmental representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue. The ld. AR of the assessee also filed his written synopsis on record. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee is engaged in the business of textile trading and manufacturing of retail textile goods with specialization women's clothing in the name of 'Amar Enterprises'. The assessee along with his wife Mrs. Komal Sunil Bajaj and Santosh Bajaj and Ranjeet Bajaj purchased a flat from ABHIGNA (builder). The share of assessee is only 32.5%. The flat was allotted vide allotment letter dated 12.03.2010. In pursuance of allotment, the first instalment of Rs. 1,51,421/- was paid on 05.04.2010. Stamp valuation value in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4.03.2011. Such bank account is of Amar Enterprises, which is propriety concern of assessee. Rest of the amount was paid just before the date of registration of transaction in June 2017. In alternative submissions, the ld AR of the assessee submits that provisions of clause (x) of sub-section (2) 0f section 56 was inserted by Finance Act 2017, effective from 01.04.2017, thus, clause (x) of section 56(2) was not on the statue book when the assessee purchased the flat, so invoking of such provision by assessing officer is not correct. 6. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following decisions; * PCIT vs Naina Saraf (2022) 142 taxmann.com 147 (Rajasthan HC), * Benudhar Gokulanand Biswal V....