TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 680
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "the Act"] dated 26.08.2021, passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [in short, "the Ld.AO"]. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: "1. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC"] erred in passing the order dated 8th January 2026 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] upholding the action of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "Ld. AO"] in passing the assessment order dated 26th August 2021 under section 143(3) r.w.s 1448 of determining total income of the Appellant at Rs. 1,82,92,630/- as against returned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her failed to appreciate that the difference between value determined by DVO and actual consideration paid for the purchase of impugned property is less than 10% of the consideration. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 35,91,000/- under section 56(2)(x) of the Act is unjustified and the same may be deleted. (iv) The Ld. CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the fourth proviso to section 56(2)(x), explicitly states that no addition can be made if the difference between the SDV and the consideration does not exceed 10% of the consideration paid. Thus, the impugned addition of Rs. 35,91,000/- under section 56(2)(x) of the Act is against the provisions of law and the same may be deleted. 3. Addition by excluding society dues fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thority at Rs. 7,03,57,000/-. Therefore, the assessee was called upon to explain, why the difference of Rs. 3,75,00,000/- should not be added invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x). In response, the assessee submitted that the value has been adopted by the Stamp Duty Authority based on ready reckoner rate of the concerned area, which the assessee objected to and requested to get it valued from the District Valuation Officer (DVO) as per provisions of section 50C(2) r.w.s 56(2)(x) of the Act. Accordingly, the valuation was obtained from the DVO vide valuation report dated 08.06.2021, wherein the property was valued at Rs. 4,10,91,000/-. The Assessing Officer has taken into consideration the value given by the DVO,and the difference of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AT decision, justify applying 10% tolerance for the A.Y. 2018-19 and no addition was made u/s. 56(2)(x) of the Act. The appellant did not raise this objection before the AO after receipt of DVO report. There was almost of two months from the DVO report to the completion of the assessment. It is not correct on the part of the appellant to raise fresh claim during the appeal proceedings. Accordingly, the ground raised on this issue is dismissed. With regard to claim of TDS amounting to Rs. 3,78,788/-, the AO is directed to verify the claim of the appellant give credit, if found correct and pass necessary order to that effect. Accordingly, the ground raised on this issue is partly allowed. With regard to claim of society dues....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on account of difference in valuation of property as per DVO report and the actual consideration paid by the assessee. On this issue, the assessee has raised a ground before the Ld. CIT(A) that the tolerance band for variation in actual consideration and DVO is of 10%, whereas in the present case the variation is Rs. 35,91,000/- only, which in terms of percentage of actual consideration is 9.57% only. Therefore, it is within the limits prescribed as per amended Third Proviso to Section 50C r.w.s 56(2)(x) of the Act. It was therefore, the request to delete the addition as the valuation by DVO was within permissible range of safe harbor limits. One more issue is raised by the assessee that an amount of Rs. 3,78,788/- made towards the tax dedu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing applicability of 10% safe harbor limit which is brought into the statutes from Finance Act 2018 with effect from 01.04.2019, the same being curative and beneficial change shall be considered retrospective in nature, therefore, it would have its effect retrospectively. ITAT Mumbai in the case of Pramod Yeshwant Kadam vs. ITO in ITA No.395/Mum/2026 dated 15.05.2026 had decided the identical issue for AY 2017-18 allowing the safe harbor of 10% following the decision of Dr. Rajivraj Ranbir Singh Choudhary vs. ACIT, 393 ITR 650 (Gujarat) wherein it is held that the amendment in harbor provisions are intended to avoid hardship to genuine transactions, so are curative and retrospective in nature. 11. Coming to the facts of present case, sin....