TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2090
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... differential amount between purchase value and stamp duty value as addition under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act without considering the material facts on record. 2. The Hon. CIT erred in passing assessment order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon. CIT erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, Hon. CIT erred in initiating penalty u/s 270A. 5. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, Hon. CIT erred in initiating penalty u/s 272A(1)(d). 6. The appellant may add modify delete any grounds of appeal before the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed written submission on 20.12.2023 through ITBA portal. The submission of assessee are scanned at page no. 9 to 11 of impugned order. In the submission, the assessee submitted that during assessment, the assessee furnished various submissions on account of difference in the value adopted by Stamp Valuation Authority and the agreement value declared by assessee. Stamp Registration Authority adopts general value based on rates decided for a particular area. In two adjacent building in same City survey, the Stamp Valuation Authority took different value depending upon various factors like location of building situation of flat, quality of construction and amenity provided by builder. During assessment, the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fairly submits that there is delay of 177 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee has already filed application for condonation of delay. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that on coming to know about dismissal of appeal of ld. CIT(A), the assessee furnished all necessary documents and instructed his tax consultant named Rajiv Vaghani to file appeal. No appeal was filed by him in time. When no appeal was filed in time, the assessee engaged in new authorised representative/consultant for filing appeal. The assessee was totally dependent on previous consultant and he should not be suffered due to his mistake. There is no wilful or wrongful attempt on the part of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the subject property with flat of group housing society. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that he has filed photos of subject property on record showing the physical condition of the property. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that report of registered valuer may be accepted. The difference vis-à-vis the value determined by government registered valuer and the value declared by assessee is having a difference of 5.81%. It is within the tolerance limit of 10% hence no addition is liable to be made. To support his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Patna High Court in Bimla Singh vs CIT (2009) 308 ITR 71 (Patna). 6. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue on the issue of condonation of delay ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s value with comparable instances of similarly situated property or that those comparable instances are good comparable and DVO considered all relevant factors affecting the potential value of the subject property. On careful perusal of report of DVO, I find that DVO has duly recorded that subject property was constructed in 1961 and its repair in 1992. The subject property is part three storied building that is ground floor plus two upper floors. There is no lift facility, having common load bearing structure. The subject property is very old and developed in phases. I also perused the comparable instances by DVO in Annexure II, attached with his report. Annexure II contained the reference of flats of group housing society. In my view, gro....