RAMESH DNYANDEO DHURI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -22(3)(6), MUMBAI

Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.:

The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 03/12/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi for assessment year
2018-19 on following grounds of appeal :
“1. Addition of Rs.4.84.000/-u/s. 56(2)(x)(b)(B)
1. The Learned NFAC (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts confirming the addition of Rs 4,84,000/- u/s.56(2)(x) (b) (B) by not considering the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2020, to section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereby the tolerance limit for the difference in the fair market value as per

2
ITA No.4425/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2018-19
Ramesh Dnyandeo Dhuri valuation report and the actual consideration was increased from 5% to 10%. The amendment is applicable retrospectively for the Assessment Year 2018-19, hence the difference as per the valuation report and actual consideration (64,84,000 60,00000) being less Rs.4,84,000/-, which is less than 10%, hence the addition of Rs. 4,84,000/- may be directed to be deleted.
2. Without prejudice to above, the Learned NFAC (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the actual consideration paid by the appellant was Rs.60,00,000/-, merely on the basis of Valuation report of the valuer which was received after passing of the Assessment order estimating the valuation at Rs.64,84,000/- and confirming the addition of Rs.4,84,000/- is not justified.
3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.”
Brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The assessee is an individual having income from Salary from Best Roadways Ltd, Income from other source which includes servicing Intercom Telephones & Pension, Savings &
Income from Capital Gain on Redemption from Mutual Funds.
During the year, assessee declared total taxable income of Rs.5,23,400/- and e-filed his return of income on 30/07/2018
and claimed deductions, u/s 80C, 80D, 80TTA and 80G sum of Rs.1,50,000/-,
Rs.30,000/-,
Rs.10,000/- and Rs.2,500/- respectively.
2.2 The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny as there was information received from the sub-