Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) upholding an addition made under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act. The addition of INR 4,31,000/- was made based on the difference between sale consideration and stamp valuation in property transactions.
Held
The Tribunal found that the addition made by the AO under Section 50C of the Act was justified as no satisfactory explanation was provided by the assessee regarding the difference in property valuation. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was upheld.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made under Section 50C of the Act based on the difference between sale deed value and stamp duty valuation is justified when no satisfactory explanation is provided by the assessee.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144B, 50C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN “SMC” BENCH: DEHRADUN
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
ORDER PER BENCH: The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 23.10.2025 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 30.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18.
At the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is taken for hearing in the absence of the Ld.AR and on the basis of material available on record.
Heard the contention of Ld.Sr.DR and perused the material available on record. We find that the addition of INR 4,31,000/- was made by invoking the provision of section 50C of the Act. The assessee had purchased various properties during the year under appeal and there was difference between the sale consideration as per Sale Deeds and the value determined by the Stamp Valuation Authorities and since the difference was in excess of the tolerance limit provided in section 50C of the Act. No satisfactory explanation was tendered before us with respect to such difference in valuation. Thus, looking to these facts, we find no error in the order passed by Ld.CIT(A) in upholding the addition made by AO u/s 50C of the Act. Accordingly order of Ld. CIT(A) is hereby, upheld.