TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 229
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 03.03.2023 as well as 148/148A(b)/148A(d) and proceedings or action so taken u/s 147/148 the notices u/s by the Ld. AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) are illegal, bad in law, barred by limitation, without jurisdiction, without approval/satisfaction from the proper or competent authority, against the principle of natural justice and various other reasons or and further contrary to the real facts of the case hence the same may kindly be quashed. 2. Rs. 2,54,180/-: The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 2,54,180/- u/s 69 on account of alleged unexplained investment in purchase of property, ignoring the material evidence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount of:- * unexplained investment in immovable property amounting to Rs. 2,54,180/- and * on account of the difference in the stamp duty value of the investment made and the actual consideration paid amounting to Rs. 31,89,500/- made by invoking Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. 4. Briefly stated, the assessee was found to have made investment in immovable property during the impugned year by way of purchase of a flat in Mumbai from A Surti Developers Pvt. Ltd. for a total consideration of Rs. 39,45,000/-, which was registered during the impugned year on 30.09.2014. However, the stamp duty valuation of the same was noted to be Rs. 71,34,500/-. Since no return of income was filed by the assessee, the case of the assessee w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2)(vii) of the Act. 6. The addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 7. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has come up in appeal before me. I have heard both the parties and have gone through the orders of the Authorities Below. 8. It is an admitted fact that the agreement to purchase the impugned property was entered into by the assessee in 28.08.2010, and entire consideration also was paid in the earlier year. The alleged sale deed though was registered in the impugned year on 30.09.2014 at the consideration agreed earlier. 9. Thus, as per the facts of the present case, the agreement to purchase the property was entered into by the assessee in the earlier year and entire consideration, as agreed, was paid by ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds fifty thousand rupees, the whole of the aggregate value of such sum; (b) any immovable property,- (i) without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property; (ii) for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration: Provided that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement may be taken for the purposes of this sub-clause: Provided furth....