AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 842
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....016 (i.e after 1st October, 2009 and before 1st April, 2017 which covers u/s. 56(2)(vii) (b) of I.T. Act) and paid the stamp duty on valuation of Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Five Lakhs Only) of the said sale deed. Thereafter the case of the Appellant was referred to the valuation cell of The Income Tax Department wherein, the valuation cell determined the value of property at Rs. 36,12,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Six Lakhs and Twelve Thousand Only). The Learned Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs. 1,12,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twelve Thousand Only) which do not exceed of one hundred and five percent of consideration received as provided u/s 50C of Income Tax Act whereas, the valuation of the appellant exceed by three percent only. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee, ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 3. Brief facts of the case qua other grounds of appeal are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 declaring income of Rs. 4,88,110/-. Initially, the return was processed under section 143(1). Later on, the case was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The case was reopened on the basis of information that the assessee purchased immovable property and that there was difference vis a vis the value declared by assessee on sale deed and value determined by Stamp Valuation Authority at the time of registration of transaction of sale. During assessment, the assessing officer noted that assessee has shown purchase considera....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d held that there was total cash in hand with assessee of Rs. 99,071/- on 31.03.2016. The assessee was also allowed credit of sale proceed of business of Rs. 3,01,842/- and remaining of Rs. 7,29,087/- was treated as unexplained. 5. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed statement of fact. On the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b), the assessee stated that there difference value declared by assessee and value determined by DVO is less than 10%, therefore, no addition is warranted as per proviso to section 50C, 43CA as well as proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b). On the addition of unexplained cash deposit, the assessee stated that he ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y assessee cannot be relied as no evidence is furnished by assessee which may substantiate those purchases and bookings were made from Flipkart through this account and confirmed the addition. Further, aggrieved the assessee is filed present appeal before Tribunal. 7. I have heard the submissions of learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue. Ground no. 1 relates to addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of Rs. 1,12,000/-. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessing officer and ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the difference between the value declared by the assessee and value determined / estimated by DVO is only 3.00 % which is certa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gadgets or personal articles of his friends or relatives. The assessee furnished complete details of such items. The assessee furnished details in the form of chart. Due to paucity of time, the assessee could not furnished confirmation of his friends and relatives. Now he has filed copy of affidavit, email communication by online platforms, tax invoices and the details of payment. Such document filed in the form of paper book running from page no. 1 to 486. The assessee is also filed application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1962. The ld. AR of assessee submits that all such evidences are relevant for adjudication of issue involved in the appeal. The assessee could not furnish a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and have gone through the order of lower authorities carefully. I find that before assessing officer, the assessee took plea that cash deposit of Rs. 11,30,000/- was out of cash withdrawal from ICICI Bank and State Bank of India. No such plea was raised by assessing officer that assessee was acted as a commission agent for his friends and relatives. Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee raised such plea that he has made purchases on behalf of his friends and relatives and acted as a commission agent. The ld. CIT(A) on considering such plea held that assessee has not filed confirmation of friends and relatives. 13. Before Tribunal, the assessee has filed voluminous documents along with the details of various items, various invoices along with t....