TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1870
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the AO") pertaining to the Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who, during the relevant previous year corresponding to Assessment Year 2019-20, was employed with M/s.Parmar Shelters and Infra Projects Private Limited and derived income by way of salary. Apart from the salary income, the assessee was also engaged in money-lending transactions amongst her close family members and friends. 3. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee, jointly with her spouse, S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Unit. 7. Upon consideration of the material furnished by the assessee, the Assessment Unit issued a Final Show Cause Notice dated 20.12.2023 proposing an addition of Rs. 45,25,741/-, representing the difference between the stated purchase consideration of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- and the stamp duty value of Rs. 1,95,25,741/-. The assessee was called upon to explain as to why the aforesaid difference should not be brought to tax u/s. 56(2)(x) of the Act under the head "Income from Other Sources". 8. According to the AO, no response was furnished by the assessee to the Final Show Cause Notice. The AO, therefore, proceeded to make an addition of Rs. 45,25,741/- u/s. 56(2)(x) of the Act, being the difference between the consideration stated i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....95,25,741/-, as against the agreed consideration of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. 12. It was further contended by the assessee that part of the consideration had been paid by way of account payee cheque on 30.10.2015, i.e., much prior to the date of registration of the property on 28.12.2018. Therefore, according to the assessee, the stamp duty value prevailing on the date of registration could not be mechanically adopted for the purpose of computing income u/s. 56(2)(x) of the Act. On the strength of the allotment letter and the payment made through banking channels prior to the date of registration, the assessee contended that the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act were not attracted in the manner invoked by the AO and, consequently, the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 17. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The dispute before us relates to the addition of Rs. 45,25,741/- made by the AO u/s. 56(2)(x) of the Act, representing the difference between the consideration of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- stated in the registered conveyance deed and the stamp duty value of Rs. 1,95,25,741/- adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority in respect of the immovable property jointly purchased by the assessee and her spouse. 18. During the course of hearing before us, the ld. AR for the assessee has filed a petition praying for admission of additional evidence. It is the submission of the ld. AR that the additional evidence sought to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. Since the said evidence requires factual verification and the AO has not had an opportunity to examine the same, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of substantial justice, to admit the additional evidence and restore the issue to the file of the AO for fresh examination. 21. We also find that the assessee has specifically contended that the date of agreement/allotment fixing the consideration for transfer of the immovable property is different from the date of registration and that part of the consideration had been paid by account payee cheque/banking channels prior to the date of registration. These aspects assume significance for determining the value to be adopted for the purposes of section 56(2)(x) of the Act and, therefore....