SIDDHI PARAGBHAI PATEL,KHAMBHAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), PETLAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1264/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 January 2025AY 2015-16Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the actual transaction value of the property was Rs. 70,27,200/-, including payment for conversion of land tenure and stamp duty, and that the difference of Rs. 31,70,800/- was due to a revised circle rate, not an actual payment. The CIT(A) had also failed to provide a proper opportunity for hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased an immovable agricultural land for Rs. 1,01,98,000/-, but the source of funds was not disclosed. The Assessing Officer treated the entire investment and stamp duty as unexplained and added it to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire sale consideration of the property, including amounts related to circle rate revisions, can be treated as unexplained investment. Whether the CIT(A) erred by confirming the addition without proper consideration of evidence and opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 50C,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH

Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 7 Siddhi Paragbhai Patel. vs. ITO

More judgments on Section 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →