TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 345
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 39,45,128/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. 3. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO are without considering the detailed submissions filed and the documentary evidences relied upon and therefore, both the orders are bad in law and liable to be set aside. 4. The Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceeding u/s 274 r.w.s 270A of the Act, vide letter dated 07.04.2021. 5. The Ld. AO, has erred in the levying interest under section 234B of the Act. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The assessee is an individual and proprietor of M/s. Naveen Enterprises. He filed his return of income on 30/08/2080 declaring total income of Rs. 5,44,170/- for the year under conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e entire sale consideration was paid by the assessee to the vendor in the year 2006 when the agreement was executed. The assessee submitted that, the registration of the agreement took place on 23/03/2018. 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the observed as held as under: "5.2 The addition made by the Assessing Officer and the submissions of the appellant have been perused. It is seen from the assessment order that the appellant purchased an immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 7,50,000/- and the stamp duty for the purpose of Section 50C read with Section 56(2)(x) of the Act is Rs. 39,45,128/-. It is a fact that the appellant paid stamp duty of Rs. 1,97,500/- on the value of Rs. 39,45,128/- and had n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....own under section 56(2)(x) of the Act has not been fulfilled by the appellant and also failed to produce source for the said purchase of immovable property. In view of the above, the addition made by the AO is upheld and the ground raised in this regard is dismissed. 6. Ground No.2 relate to restriction of the differential amount i.e. Rs. 31,95,128/- (Rs. 39,75,128 - 7,50,000). The AO held that the appellant purchased a property for a consideration of Rs. 7,50,000/-. However, the appellant paid stamp duty of Rs. 1,97,500/- for the value of Rs. 39,45,128/-. The AO added the entire amount of Rs. 39,45,128/- as income from other sources: The appellant in his submissions stated that the appellant had purchased the property for Rs. 7,50....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d agreement to sell is placed at page 12-23 of the paper book. The Ld.AR submitted that the original vendor had also filed an affidavit to further strengthen the Agreement to sell dated 19/10/2006 to the assessee. 4.2 The Ld.AR submitted that, based on the Agreement to sell, the assessee transferred electricity bill in his name. The society also issued certificate of membership to assessee on 10/04/2010. It is submitted that subsequently the assessee entered into sale deed on 23/03/2018 after the expiry of the restricted period of 10 years. This sale deed was registered with the sub-registrar of stamps in the. The Ld.AR submitted that, it was merely the registration of the document that happened in the relevant year under consideration, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not be registered. 5.1 Be that as it may, such conditions are never strictly followed by the allottees and MAHADA allotted properties are often sold before expiry of lock in period of 10 years. Similar situation arose in the present facts of the case, where assessee purchased the house that was allotted by MAHADA to the original allottee in the year 2006 by way of Agreement to Sell dated 19/10/2006. 5.2 It is noted that various documents like indemnity bond, affidavit was executed by the original allottee in favour of assessee, transferring all title and interest of the original allottee to the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 750,000. It is also noted that a general power of attorney has been executed by the original allottee in ....