TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1617
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entre (NFAC) failed to appreciate that there is no difference in consideration paid as per agreement value and stamp valuation, the appellant has filed an affidavit, and also statement was taken on oath wherein the appellant has stated that no cash consideration was paid other than stated in the agreement hence the addition of Rs. 33,00,000 may be directed to be deleted. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO based on a statement recorded u/s.132(4) of Shri Binesh Balakrishnan, Sr. Accountant without giving an opportunity for cross-examination in the course of assessment proceedings as well as in appellate proceedings, when a specific request was made in the course of assessment as well as appellate proceedings. Hence, the addition confirmed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) without giving an opportunity for cross-examination is bad in law and liable to be deleted." 2. The assessee is an individual having income from House Property and Interest Income. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2014-15 on 09.08.2014 declaring a total income of Rs. 6,15,200/-. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issued by the AO is beyond the control of the assessee. The ld. AR also submitted that the AO has not conducted any independent inquiry but has proceeded to make the addition merely based on the statements recorded and for the reason that the builder did not respond to the summons. It is submitted by the ld AR that based on the same survey conducted at M/s Shah Housecon Pvt. Ltd., an addition under section 69 was made in case of M/s Yash Synthetic Pvt. Ltd. towards on-money payment relying on the statement recorded. The ld AR further submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench in the said case in ITA No. 268/Mum/2024 dated 18.06.2024 has held that no addition can be made based on the statement of Senior Accountant Shri Binesh Balakrishnan. The ld. AR also submitted that there is no difference between the registered value and the stamp duty value of the property and therefore the AO is not correct in making an addition under section 69 of the Act without any basis. 5. The ld. DR on the other hand vehemently argued that the statement found during the course of survey as submitted by the revenue before the Tribunal contains the name of the assessee and therefore the AO has correctly made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Year 2016-17 and this fact has not been noted down in the Statement. The case of the assessee is that it has made all payments by way of cheques only and the relevant details were furnished to the AO. 8. The Ld A.R further submitted that the purchase value of flats are also supported by the valuation report issued by a registered valuer and this report support the case of the assessee that there was no necessity to pay part of consideration in cash, as the purchase was done at market rates. In the case of Shri Anil Jaggi vs. ACIT (ITA No.3049/Mum/2016 dated 20-12- 2017), the co-ordinate bench examined the addition made in the hands of buyer of flat on the basis of evidence seized from the builder during the course of search operations conducted u/s 132 of the Act. The co-ordinate bench expressed the view that the addition could not have been made on the basis of recording done at the end of builder, when the purchase consideration matches with the market rates and further no other evidence corroborating those entries are found. The relevant observations made by the co-ordinate bench in the above said case are extracted below:- "15. We shall now take up the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ath in the course of the Search & seizure proceedings had confirmed that the amounts aggregating to Rs. 475.60 crore recorded in the pen drive were the on money received on sale of flats, which was offered as additional income under Sec. 132(4) and thereafter offered as such for tax in the petition filed before the Settlement commission. We are of the considered view that there is substantial force in the contention of the ld. A.R that mere admission of the amounts recorded in the pen drive as the additional income by Sh. Niranjan Hiranandani, falling short of any such material which would inextricably evidence payment of "on money" by the assessee would not lead to drawing of adverse inferences as regards the investment made by the assessee for purchase of the property under consideration. We rather hold a strong conviction that the very fact that the consideration paid by the assessee for purchase of the property under consideration when pitted against the "market value‟ fixed by the stamp valuation authority is found to be substantially high, further fortifies the veracity of the claim of the assessee that his investment made towards purchase of the property under consider....