2026 (6) TMI 978

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in passing the assessment order pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u/s 147 r.w.s 144C (13) of the act. The impugned order, so passed, is unjustified, bad in law, contrary to the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and liable to be quashed. 2. The Hon'ble DRP erred in issuing cryptic, non-speaking directions without dealing with the specific objections, factual submissions, and evidence placed on record by the appellant, and confirming the draft assessment order without independently adjudicating the objections filed by the appellant, thereby failing to exercise the quasi-judicial powers vested in it u/s 144C(5) of the Act. 3. The Hon&#39....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rn of income on 30.04.2024 declaring total income at Rs. 9,89,600/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under draft assessment order dated 30.03.2025 assessing the total income at Rs. 2,35,89,580/-. The assessee filed objection against the said proposed assessment on 29.04.2025 before the DRP. The DRP confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,25,99,980/- as undisclosed income from other sources as there was no registered agreement or proof of payment made towards token money through banking channel on an earlier date prior to the date of registration of purchase deed i.e. 29.04.2019 furnished by the assessee in support of her contention that purchase consideration should not be taken as Rs. 2,32,48,980/- invoking provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....deed for plot no. 56 was executed for Rs. 25,94,000/- on 29.01.2017 for 27,351 sq. mts. of land. Out of the total area of 32,821 sq. mts., portions belonging to Jashodaben (1,357.50 sq. mts.) and Kiritbhai Patel (4,102.50 square meters), both legal heirs of Chaganbhai Patel were not sold as they expired before the sale of land. Subsequently, another sale deed dated 29.04.2019 was executed between Jashodaben and Kiritbhai Patel legal heirs of chaganbhai as sellers and Mrs. Chhaya Mahendra Patel as purchaser for remaining portion of land for Rs. 6,49,000/-. However, at the time of this transaction, the stamp duty was paid as per the jantri value as on 29.04.2019 as per the stamp duty rule of the government (and to comply with all the rules an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the time of registration irrespective of banakhat or legal dispute. The Ld. AR submitted that the entire transaction satisfies the conditions of the first proviso to section 56(2)(x), which states that if there is a prior agreement fixing the consideration and the payment or part thereof is made through banking channels before the date of registration, then the stamp duty value as on the date of agreement shall be taken for tax purposes but not the value as on the date of registration. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has complied with all such conditions, including payment made as per the agreement and the delay in execution was due to genuine circumstances beyond control, including court proceedings and the death of one of the co-ow....