JAYASHRI SURESH REKHATE,CHANDUR BAZAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 5, AMRAVATI

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,09,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 56(2)(x) of the Income- tax Act, 1961, without properly appreciating the facts of the case.

The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in making addition under section 56(2)(x) merely on the basis of stamp duty valuation, without considering that the assessee had purchased the property at the prevailing market price and the ready reckoner / stamp duty value was higher than the actual fair market value.

The learned CIT(A) erred in law in holding that reference to the Valuation Officer is not required in the case of purchaser, without appreciating that where the assessee disputes the stamp duty value, the Assessing Officer ought to have referred the matter to the Valuation Officer to determine the fair market value before making addition under section 56(2)(x).

The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessment was completed ex-parte under section 144 of the Act and the assessee did not get proper opportunity to raise dispute and explain the difference between the purchase consideration and stamp duty valuation before the Assessing Officer.

The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without considering that the provisions of section 56(2)(x) should be applied only where the stamp duty value represents the fair market value, and not where the stamp duty value is excessive or higher than the actual market price.

The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without appreciating that the Assessing Officer made the addition without making proper inquiry, without bringing any material on record, and without obtaining valuation from the Departmental Valuation Officer.

The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that reference to Valuation Officer is applicable only in the case of seller under section 50C and not in the case of purchaser, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice and correct interpretation of section 56(2)(x).

The addition of Rs. 3,09,000/- confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is unjustified, excessive and liable to be deleted.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No.

On facts and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1901, which is illegal, bad in law, and liable to be deleted. 2. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that no penalty was leviable in view of exception given in section 270A(6)(a) mor particularly when the Ld CIT(A) has not observed that th explanation given by assessee is not bonafide and the appellant ha not disclosed all the material facts to substantiate the explanatic offered. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant is government employee drawing salary income only, and under bo fide belief that no tax was payable, the appellant did not file return of income even after due refund due to TDS on salary and no prejudice is caused to revenue due to non filing of return, and therefore there was no intention to under-report income. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty without appreciating that the salary income of Rs. 4,26,827/ was fully disclosed in Form No.16 and Form 26AS, and tax was already deducted at source, hence there was no concealment or under reporting of income. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty with respect to addition made under section 56(2)(x) amounting to Rs. 3,09,000/-being 50% share of difference in stamp duty valuation, without appreciating that the property was purchased at prevailing market value jointly with husband and the difference arose only due to stamp duty valuation, which was beyond the control of the appellant. 6. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessment order was passed ex-parte under section 144 due to non-appearance, and therefore penalty under section 270A should not have been levied in absence of deliberate under-reporting of income. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that non-filing of return automatically results in under- reported income, without considering the facts that the no tax was payable on salary income. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.

ITA No. 283/NAG/2026 is against the addition of Rs. 3,09,000/-

At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for remitting both

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.