2026 (6) TMI 1483

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rounds of appeal: "1. The Ld CIT(A)-NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming addition of Rs. 2,74,532/- u/s. 56(2)(x) without considering the valuation of DVO in case of CO-OWNER. 2. The Ld CIT(A)-NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming of Rs. 5,00,000/-the investment made by the assessee as unexplained u/s. 69. 3. The Ld CIT(A)-NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- being CASH deposited in the Bank a/c. 4. The valuation by DVO may be kindly considered for taxing the difference u/s. 56(2)(x). 5. The addition of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e property. For the purpose of stamp duty, the property was valued at Rs. 45,69,504/-. After taking cognizance of the assessee's reply, the AO made addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- in respect of unexplained investment in the immovable property u/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The AO further made addition of Rs. 2,74,532/- which is a difference in value as per the Stamp Duty Authority and the consideration in which they have purchased the property and treated the same as income from other sources u/s. 56(2)(x) of the Act. The AO further made addition of Rs. 3,25,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act related to cash deposits in Bank of India. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. As regards ground No.2 related to addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- as unexplained investment the assessee has given the bank details wherein the assessee has shown that the share of the assessee was to the extent of 16.95% and the AO has not taken cognizance of the same. The CIT(A)'s order is also ex-parte, therefore it will be appropriate to remand back this issue to the file of the AO to verify the investment and the original source. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. Thus, ground No.2 is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 8. As regards ground No.1, t....