PIYARE JOHN SURAJ BABU,SALEM vs. ITO, SALEM

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री जॉजज जॉजज के., उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री गगन गोयल लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE HONOURABLE GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 2252/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 Piyare John Suraj Babu v. Income Tax Officer, No.115/1, Avvai Nagar, Jagir Ward-1(6), Ammapalayam S.O, Mamangam, Salem. Salem, Tamil Nadu-636 302. [PAN: FQAPS7577B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr. Bhupendran, Advocate, Ld. AR प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT, Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 20.08.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 21.10.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) / NFAC, (hereinafter referred as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), Delhi dated 17.02.2026 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred as the ‘AY’) 2018-19.

GROUDS OF APPEAL 1) The Impugned Order is bad, erroneous and unsustainable in law. 2) The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not considering the circumstances of the case, the grounds raised, the submissions made, thereby passing a mechanical order. 3) Without prejudice, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer also erred in not considering that the Appellant had furnished Confirmation Letter from his father along with full address, thereby satisfying the onus on his part, upon which no further inquiry was made by the Assessing Officer. 4) Without prejudice, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer also erred in not considering that when the Appellant claims that the sum of money received from an

ITA No.2252/Chny/2026 Piyare John Suraj Babu identifiable person as source and when the other person also owns the same, then, no addition can be made on the Appellant. [Reliance is placed on [2000] 245 ITR 160 (Madhya Pradesh) and [2001] 252 ITR 344 (Punjab & Haryana)] 5) Without prejudice, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer also erred in not considering that the Appellant did not have obligation to prove the source of source of funds unless the addition is made under Section 68 as amended by the Finance Act, 2022 that only with effect from 01/04/2023. 6) Without prejudice, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer also erred in not considering the availability of cash out of Cash Withdrawals reflecting in the Bank Account, without considering that the onus is on the Department to rebut by proving that the sums withdrawn were spent somewhere else by the Appellant. [Relying on ITA No.101/Bang/2022 dated 01/06/2022, ITA No. 2484/Del/2023 dated 05/09/2024, ΙΤΑ No.2845/Chny/2024 dated 03/04/2025, ITA No.774/Chny/2025 dated 20/08/2025 and ITA No.3240/Chny/2025 dated 17/12/2025] 7) Without prejudice, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in not considering that the Assessing Officer did not consider and give credit for the payment of tax and interest by the Appellant, when the Appellant specifically placed Challan copy before the Assessing Officer, thereby causing further prejudice to the Appellant. And, for other reasons and grounds that may be adduced later, the Appellant sincerely prays that the present appeal may be admitted, duly considered and justice be rendered. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee engaged in the business of mineral grinding on a job work basis, filed his return of income on 18.10.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 2,47,000/-. The case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act on the ground of difference between the stamp duty value and consideration paid for purchase of a residential apartment. In view of this a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2022. In response to the same the assessee offered the differential amount of Rs. 4,37,390/- as income under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. Ultimately, the case of the assessee was assessed u/s. 144, 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making addition of Rs. 8,46,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act (in addition to the income declared by the assessee). The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who in dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee being further aggrieved with the same preferred the present appeal before us. 3. We have gone through the order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submissions of the assessee alongwith grounds taken before us. It is observed that the prime reason as assigned by the AO for reopening of the matter was difference

Page 2 of 4

ITA No.2252/Chny/2026 Piyare John Suraj Babu in the registry value vis-à-vis value as adopted by the sub-registrar amounting to Rs. 4,37,390/-. This amount of difference has already been declared by the assessee in the return filed in compliance to section 148 of the Act (although AO considered the same also as addition made by him). Here, before going into the merits of the case, we deem it fit to examine the legal position as applicable to the assessments done, for better understanding of the issue under consideration, we deem it fit to reproduce the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act as below: (x) where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after the 1st day of April 2017, — (a) any sum of money, without consideration, the aggregate value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the whole of the aggregate value of such sum; (b) any immovable property, — (A) without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property; (B) for a consideration, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration, if the amount of such excess is more than the higher of the following amounts, namely: — (i) the amount of fifty thousand rupees; and (ii) the amount equal to ten per cent of the consideration: Provided that where the date of 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 agreement may be taken for the purposes of this sub-clause: Provided further that the provisions of the first proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration referred to therein, or a part thereof, has been paid by way of an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft or by use of electronic clearing system through a bank account or through such other electronic mode as may be prescribed, on or before the date of agreement for transfer of such immovable property: Provided also that where the stamp duty value of immovable property is disputed by the assessee on grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 50C, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of such property to a Valuation Officer, and the provisions of section 50C and sub-section (15) of section 155 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the stamp duty value of such property for the purpose of this sub-clause as they apply for valuation of capital asset under those sections:

Page 3 of 4

ITA No.2252/Chny/2026 Piyare John Suraj Babu equal to 10%, then there is no action is required. For this all the information was readily available with the AO at the time of issuance of notice itself and no notice u/s. 148 of the Act was required to be issued.

Sd/- Sd/- (जॉजा जॉजा के.) (गगन गोयल) (GAGAN GOYAL) (GEORGE GEORGE K.) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपाध्यक्ष /VICE PRESIDENT चेन्नई/Chennai, ददनाांक/Dated: 21st October, 2026. KB आदेश की प्रततललपप अग्रेपषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT, Chennai /Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. पवभागीय प्रतततनधि/DR K 5. गार्ड फाईल/GF Digitally signed by K BABU BABU Date: 2026.10.26 09:40:06 +05'30'

Page 4 of 4