Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was for AY 2012-13, arising from an addition made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The addition was based on the difference between the actual purchase price of an asset and its circle rate.
Held
The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable. The relevant legislative amendment to Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) was inserted by the Finance Act, 2013, effective from April 1, 2014, and therefore, was not applicable to the assessment year 2012-13.
Key Issues
Whether the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) for AY 2012-13 is valid when the relevant amendment was introduced later.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 56(2)(vii)(b), 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Saurabh Sharvan Gupta, Vs ACIT, 20, Second Floor, Hari Sadan, Circle-52(1), Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AEDPG2454H Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 04.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071511745(1) dated 24.12.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Learned departmental representative Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav vehemently argues that both the lower authorities herein have rightly made section 56(2)(vii)(b) addition amounting to Rs.18,82,834/- in the assessee’s hands which represents the difference between the actual purchase price of Rs.64,01,500/- as against circle rate thereof of Rs.1,20,50,000; to the extent
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings all along and the Revenue’s foregoing vehement submissions. I find no reason to sustain the impugned addition. It is made clear first of all that the impugned assessment year herein is A.Y. 2012-13 whereas the corresponding legislative amendment seeking to tax the above differential amount u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) came to be inserted (substituted) by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014. I thus find no reason to concur with the learned lower authorities’ action making the impugned addition. Deleted accordingly.