AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1501
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act') for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-2019. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "Your appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. CIT (Appeals)'], Income tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) presents this appeal against the same on the following amongst other grounds: 1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in facts and on law in confirming the action of AO making addition of Rs 18,10,640/- invoking the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. On facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) are just not attracted in case of Appellant and entire additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y other provisions of the Income tax Act. It is therefore submitted that once consideration paid has been accepted in case of seller, the same is ought to have been accepted in case of buyer applying principal of natural justice. Thus, the addition made applying Section 56(2)(x) being unwarranted and unjust be deleted accordingly. 5. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or to amend all or any of the grounds before the final hearing." 2.1. The assessee has raising the following additional grounds of appeal: "1 The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by mechanically adopting the stamp duty valuation (SDV) of the property in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come from other sources, holding that the assessee had received property for consideration less than its fair market value. Consequently, the AO made an addition of Rs. 18,10,640 to the returned income, and computed the total income at Rs. 29,77,410. Being aggrieved by the said addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the land purchased was agricultural land and not non-agricultural (N.A.) land, as erroneously assumed by the AO. The assessee submitted that the land fell under a proposed draft Town Planning (T.P.) Scheme of the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA), which was not yet finalized. Due to the draft scheme, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which could have established its agricultural status. According to the CIT(A), when land is covered by an urban development scheme and the stamp value is determined on the basis of N.A. land rates, it cannot be treated as purely agricultural for the purpose of income-tax assessment. In view of these observations, the CIT(A) held that the AO was justified in invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x) and making the addition of Rs. 18,10,640 towards the difference in value. The CIT(A) accordingly confirmed the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....advanced by the learned Counsel for the assessee. The sale deed and the Form No. 7 extract demonstrate that the land purchased is agricultural and not non-agricultural. The charging of higher stamp duty by the Sub-Registrar's Office based on a draft AUDA scheme would not, in our view, alter the inherent nature of the land. It is a settled legal position that stamp duty valuation or classification for fiscal purposes does not determine the character of the property under the Income-tax Act. The fact that the assessee has paid consideration higher than the jantri rate applicable to agricultural land further supports that there was no underreporting of value or benefit derived by the assessee that could warrant the application of section 56(2)....