TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 45
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....021-22. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income, declaring total income of Rs. 10,69,950/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 67,45,000/- into various bank accounts. The AO further noted that the assessee has purchased various properties and the value as per sale deed and fair market value of the property as per Registered document was different and therefore, ascertained differential value of Rs. 30,76,375/- and called upon the assessee to explain as to why addition should not be u/s 56(2)(X) of the Act. The assessee has explained the source for cash deposit, out of his ow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 98,43,254/- for the year ending 31.03.2020, out of which he has made cash deposit on the next dates, for which the assessee has furnished relevant income tax returns, cash flow statement and statement of affairs. Therefore, he submitted that the additions made by the AO should be deleted. 6. Shri A.P.Babu, Ld.Sr.AR for the Revenue, supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the assessee has failed to explain the source for cash deposit by filing credible evidences, which is evident from relevant explanations furnished by the assessee, where the assessee has made general arguments without any supporting documents. The Ld.AO and the Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant facts has rightly made addition towards cash deposit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....et aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 67,45,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act towards cash deposit into the bank account. 8. The next issue that came for consideration from ground No.6 to 8 of assessee's appeal is addition of Rs. 30,76,375/- towards difference between sale consideration as per registered deed and fair market value of the property as per Stamp Duty Authorities. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee along with other co-owners had purchased four properties during the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration and the fair market value of the property as per Stamp Duty Authorities is in excess of the sale consideration as per the register....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ities and sale consideration as per sale deed in respect of purchase of 4 properties and such difference has been worked by the AO at Rs. 30,76,375/-. The AO made additions u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act, on the ground that once there is difference between the fair market value and the sale consideration, the difference should be assessed as income of the assessee as per section 56(2)(x) of the Act. We find that identical issue has been considered by us in the case of Kanchan Lalwani Vs. Income Tax Officer (supra). In the above case, the assess is one of the 4 co-owners of the 4 properties purchased by the assessee, where, the Tribunal after considering relevant facts deleted the addition by holding that when the assessee has specifically requeste....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd that, as per the valuation report submitted by the assessee, the value of property is less than the sale consideration paid for purchase of property and therefore in our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer ought to have accepted the explanation offered by the assessee. Further, when the assessee has disputed the value determined by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of section 56(2) of the Act, then the Assessing Officer ought to have referred to the valuation of the property to the registered valuer before making the addition. Since the Assessing Officer made addition without considering the explanation of the assessee, even though the said explanation is supported by necessary evidences and also without referring the matter to....