GOPAL KUMAR SAHA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action invoking section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) addition of Rs. 19,29,100/- on account of difference between actual and stamp price in the purchase deed executed on 26.11.2014. The Revenue’s only argument is that although the assessee had entered into corresponding purchase agreement on 17.03.2011 and paid cheque amount of Rs. 80,000/- on the very date, the same was not a registered document which could be taken as compliance of section 56(vii)(b) 1st and 2nd proviso to this effect. I find no Gopal Kumar Saha merit in the Revenue’s instant technical argument. The fact remains that neither of the lower authorities has doubted genuineness of assessee’s above stated agreement or part payment made by banking channel. There is further no material supporting the Revenue’s case that the above statutory behest is restricted to a registered agreement only. I therefore hold that both the lower authorities have erred in law as well as on fact in making the impugned tradition of Rs. 19,29,100/- . The same is directed to be deleted.

The assessee’s appeal is allowed