TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 254
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as "CIT(A)"] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] dated09.03.2024for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2018-19. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. Erroneous Addition under Section 50C Based Solely on Stamp Duty Valuation * The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the property purchased by the appellant suffered from various disadvantages including: * Absence of Occupation Certificate (OC) at the time of purchase * Non-availability of basic amenities in the area * These factors justified the lower purchase price compared to stamp duty value The CIT(A) erroneously treated stamp duty value as concl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; Shyam sunder Reengusia 16.08.2017 2240001 2464648 41.08% TDS deducted by Shyam sunder B Reengusia 24646 Total 6000002 6000002 100% On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 34,81,500/- under Section 56(2)(x)(b) in the hands of the appellant when his share in the property was only 41.08% (Rs. 14,30,200/-). The CIT(A)'s reasoning that the entire amount should be added because the wife's case "escaped scrutiny" is legally untenable and violates the principle of proportionate taxation based on actual ownership. 4. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice The learned C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enalty Proceedings The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the ground against penalty proceedings under Section 270A without proper adjudication. The penalty proceedings are not justified as: * There was no concealment of facts or furnishing of inaccurate particulars * The appellant had disclosed all material facts and raised legitimate disputes * The matter involves a debatable issue of law and valuation 3. All the grounds above excepting ground no.8 pertain to the addition made by the AO in respect of the difference in stamp duty value and agreed price of certain immovable property. In this case, information was received by the AO that during the year under consideration, the assessee had purchased an immovabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Reengusia, jointly purchased a flat in Chembur, Mumbai, for a total consideration of Rs. 60,00,002/- on 14.08.2017. The property was acquired with an ownership ratio of 41.08% in favour of the assessee and 58.92% in case of his spouse. However, the stamp duty value (SDV) of the property was determined to be Rs. 94,81,500/-, resulting in a differential amount of Rs. 34,81,500/- between the agreement value and the SDV. The ld.CIT(A) on enquiry from the AO found that the wife of the assessee had also not disclosed the difference in her own return for the relevant year. Consequently, he observed that apportioning only 41.08% of the disputed amount of Rs. 34,81,500/-, i.e. Rs. 14,30,200/-, to the assessee's total income under Section 56(2)(x)(b)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... time of purchase of property and even till date, resultantly fair market value of the property was lower in comparison to stamp duty value. He also requested to the AO to appoint the Government Valuer to get the right fair market value of the said property u/s 50C(2) of the Act. However, the ld. CIT (Appeal) did not consider the request which was not justified. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal) wherein it was held that if the stamp duty valuation is higher than the consideration received, the AO must refer the valuation to the DVO even if there is no request by the assessee. In the case of Amarshiv Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT ITAT Ahmedabad he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence this was against the natural justice. It was also submitted that entire difference could not be added in his hand. Reliance was placed on Arvind kumar Jagjivandas Thakkar vs. ITO ITAT Ahmedabad. 6. The ld.DR on the other hand relied on the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have carefully considered the factual matrix and also the contentions of the assessee. It is not disputed that the difference of Rs. 34,81,500/- came within the purview of section 56(vii)(b) of the Act. However, it is noticed firstly that request of the assessee to both the authorities for referring the valuation issue to the Departmental Valuation officer as per specific provisions of the Act was not heeded for inexplicable reasons. They were also not jus....