MOHAMAD SALIM KHAN,ROORKEE vs. CIT (A) &ITO ROORKEE, ROORKEE
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
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.
What were the 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.
What were the 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.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Noore Manpower Services vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Maa Bhawani Minrals vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
