TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2040
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and accordingly, reopened the case of the assessee u/sec.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"], after obtaining necessary approval from the Competent Authority. 2.1. The Assessing Officer noted in the "reasons for re-opening" and also ratified by the assessee in her reply that, Shri. Thummalla Ramkrishna Prasad (buyer and grandfather of the assessee) has paid an amount of Rs. 49,48,500/- as consideration on 06.10.2012. But, on going through the petition filed by the Shri Thummalla Ramkrishna Prasad (the grandfather of the assessee) in the Court of II Additional District Judge at Gudivada, Shri. Thummalla Ramkrishna Prasad has entered into an agreement to sale with Shri Mr. Madala Sai Kumar (the seller) to purchase the property for a total consideration of Rs. 98,93,750/-. Out of this Rs. 96,93,750/- were paid to the seller before 06.09.2016 and the remaining Rs. 2,00,000/- paid after the District Court, Gudivada's order. Thus, Shri Thummalla Ramkrishna Prasad (grandfather of the assessee) paid an amount of Rs. 98,93,750/- to Shri Madala Sai Kumar (the seller) be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8. Reply to the show cause notice:- draft assessment order, along with the above was forwarded to the assessee as "Show cause notice" on 17/03/2022 and she was requested to reply within two days. In reply, she has repeated the same points which were already submitted by her in earlier reply and already considered in the draft assessment order. The assessee tried to derive the meaning favourable to her from the provisions of the Act which is not permissible. In this regard, it will be convenient to notice the relevant rules of construction. The classic statement of Rowlatt J. in Cape Brandy Syndicate Vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners still holds the field. It reads : "In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used". Further, the assessee has not challenged the stamp duty valuation before the sub registrar or during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the issue of referring the matter to the DVO does not arise. Therefore, the additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts and discussions made hereinabove, in my considered opinion, the AO has correctly invoked provisions of section 56(2)(viib) while making addition of Rs. 71,53,250/-. Appeal is, thus, dismissed." 4. During the course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that there is no dispute between the parties that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income in response to notice u/sec.148 of the Act declaring total income at Rs. 2,540/-. The only dispute of the Assessing Officer is that the assessee has paid cash payment of Rs. 49,48,500/- for purchase of an immovable property of 3788.22 sq. yards at Vuyyuru (v) vide sale deed dated 23.02.2017 which has been paid by assessee's grand father Shri Thummalla Ramkrishna Prasad to Shri Mr. Madala Sai Kumar [the seller] as per the agreement of sale dated 16.10.2012 which is not disputed by either Assessing Officer or the learned CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee's grandfather has paid the impugned sum of Rs. 49,48,500/- for purchase of the property to the seller viz., Madala Sai Kumar as per the original agreement dated 16.10.2012 which is evident from the recitals of sale deed dated 23.02.2017. He, there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be the income of the assessee. It was argued by the Counsel for the Assessee that assessee's Grandfather Sri Tummalapali Ramkrishna Prasad entered into agreement with Sri Madala Sai Kumar on 16.10.2012 for purchase of land to an extent of 3778.22 sq yards for a consideration of Rs. 49,48,500/- and the entire consideration has been paid in cash. Further Sri Tummalapali Ramkrishna Prasad filed a suit for specific performance before the court of law on 06.09.2016 and on a compromise petition before the Court, the Court allowed the parties to enter into sale deed and as per the agreement, sale deed has been executed by Shri Madala Sai Kumar in favour of the appellant-assessee Haripriya Kotapati on 23.02.2017. Since the consideration of purchase of the property has been paid in full in the year 2012, the stamp duty value as on the date of registration of the property i.e., on 23.02.2017 cannot be considered and thus, provisions of sec.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act cannot be in force. 7. We find that the provisions of sec.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is applicable, where an individual, without consideration, receives any immovable property or for a consideration, which is less than the stamp....