2026 (10) TMI 913

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. 2. The order passed by Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot-1, Rajkot [hereinafter referred as to the "PCIT"] is bad in law, invalid and required to be quashed, the same may kindly be quashed. 3. the Ld. PCIT erred in law and on facts in arriving at a conclusion that the assessment order passed by the AO was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the ground that the AO has not applied his mind and not conducted proper inquiry & verification in respect of applicability of section 56(2)(vii)(b) in respect of immovable property purchased. The order ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1,88,650/-. On the basis of the applicable stamp duty rate of 4.9%, the stamp duty value of the property was worked out by the Ld. PCIT at Rs. 38,50,000/-. The Ld. PCIT was of the view that the difference between the actual consideration paid by the assessee and the stamp duty value of the property attracted the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. According to the Ld. PCIT, the Assessing Officer had neither examined this issue nor made any inquiry or verification with regard to the applicability of the aforesaid provision while completing the assessment. 5. Accordingly, the Ld. PCIT issued a show-cause notice under section 263 of the Act dated 25.01.2025, which was duly served upon the assessee. The Ld. PCIT eventually held t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....property during the relevant previous year for a consideration of Rs. 7,65,765/-, whereas the corresponding stamp duty value of the property was Rs. 38,50,000/-. The difference between the consideration paid and the stamp duty value was thus Rs. 30,84,235/-, which was substantially in excess of the prescribed threshold under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the transaction required examination with reference to the applicability of the said provision. The assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 10.02.2023 does not reveal any inquiry or verification by the Assessing Officer regarding the aforesaid transaction or the applicability of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 10. In our considered view, the....