TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1978
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), pursuant to directions issued by the learned DRP dated 04.11.2022 passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act. 2. Revised grounds of appeal raised by the assessee with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, read as under: 1. That on the facts and in law the impugned reassessment order is void ab initio in the absence of any (recorded) reason to believe that income of Rs. 90,12,585/- vide impugned addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), chargeable to tax thereunder, had escaped assessment qua subject assessment year 2016-17. 2. That on the facts and in law, the impugned reassessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 15.12.2022 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... That on the facts and in law, the impugned penalty proceedings initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in consequence of the legally unsustainable impugned addition vide impugned reassessment order is erroneous and unsustainable in law. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify or vary any of the above grounds of appeal at any time during the pendency of the present appeal or at the time of hearing before this Hon'ble Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that as per information available, the AO observed that the assessee, a non-resident, during F.Y. 2015-16 relevant to A.Y. 2016-17 had purchased an immovable property (Flat No. K-054, Gulshan Vivante, Plot no. GH-07/A, Sector-137, Noida) for a consideration of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee had submitted that he had paid the prevailing market price charged by the Builder and has paid stamp duty as was asked by the builder. It was submitted that he was not aware of any difference between the value as per stamp duty and actual sales consideration paid. It was submitted that the amount paid by the assessee was actual consideration paid which was the fair market value of the property. It was further submitted that no addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) was called for as the difference between the market value of property and actual consideration was less than 10% of the actual consideration. The assessee relied upon the decision of ITAT, Bangalore Bench, in the case of Shri Sandeep Patil v. ITO(ITA 924/Bang/2019) for assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....recorded for reopening of the assessment as the addition has been made on some other ground i.e. difference between circle rate and actual consideration paid for purchasing the aforesaid flat, rather than with respect to the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment which were with respect to verification of sources of making investment in the said flat, and therefore the said additions as were made by the AO is not sustainable. Reliance was placed by ld. Counsel for the assessee on the judgment and order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) and several other judicial pronouncements as submitted in legal paper book filed by the assessee. It was submitted that the assessee ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee for purchase of the immovable property - Flat No. K-054, Gulshan Vivante, Plot no. GH-07/A, Sector-137, Noida. The AO accepted the sources of investments made by the assessee in purchasing the aforesaid property for Rs. 1,29,41,700/-,and no additions were made by the AO. However, the additions have been made by the AO u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) on the ground of difference of Rs. 9,96,315/- between the circle rate of the immovable property for payment of stamp duty as determined by the state authorities and the actual consideration paid by the assessee for purchase of the aforesaid flat. We have also observed that the learned DRP has affirmed the action of the AO, and the AO passed the final assessment order. We are of the considered vie....