BHAWANI APARTMENT PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR. 3(2), KOLKATA

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata-21 (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 27.12.2023 for the AY 2018-19.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute before this Tribunal is only in respect of addition confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) amounting to ₹75,57,120/- as made by the ld. AO u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act without referring the matter to the valuation officer as mandated by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT reported in [2014] 47 taxmann.com 158 (Calcutta). The ld. AR submitted that the assessee, during the year, has purchased a property for a consideration of ₹1,42,88,000/- which had the same stamp valuation. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee handed all the account payee cheques in discharge of the purchase consideration and the seller of the property realized the cheques to

The ld. DR on the other hand fairly agreed to the said proposition, however left the final decision to the wisdom of the Bench.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the impugned property was not free from certain encumbrances and accordingly, the possession was not handed over. We note that the ownership of the property went into litigation with other tenants living in the property. Now, in our opinion, it would be fair and reasonable if the status of the property is ascertained by the ld. AO after examining the status of the ownership, legal dispute going on, tenants in the property and if there is a deviation in the valuation as per stamp valuation and the price