NUTAN SARIN,. vs. ITO WARD -5(2)(1), NOIDA , .

PDF

ITA 3718/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 February 2024AY 2016-17Bench: or during the hearing of these grounds.3. Brief facts of the case are that in this case, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.5,26,400/- on account of difference of purchase price and circle rate of the property u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 5,26,400/- based on the difference between the purchase price and circle rate of a property under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This addition was subsequently confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC. The assessee argued that the actual consideration paid was higher than noticed by the AO and that all payments were made through account payee cheques.

Held

The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to examine the chart of payments submitted by the assessee and verify its factual accuracy. The assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard during this process.

Key Issues

Whether the assessment was reopened without proper application of mind and independent inquiry; Whether the addition made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) for the difference between property purchase price and circle rate is justified, considering the assessee's claim of higher actual payment.

Sections Cited

56(2)(vii)(b), 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA

For Appellant: Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Adv. and Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv

Hearing: 05.02.2024Pronounced: 09.02.2024

ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi, dated 20.11.2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17.

The grounds of appeal reads as under:-

1 1. That Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in not holding that assessment made is bad in law as the assessing officer has reopened the assessment without making any independent enquiry or application of mind and merely on the basis of information received. 2 2. That Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the addition made by Ld. A0 of Rs. 5,26,400/- on account of difference of purchase price and circle rate of the property u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without noticing that assessee has already invested for the amenities and so cost of the property is much higher. 3 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in upholding the order of assessment without appreciating: a. That the actual consideration paid by assessee was Rs. 35,42,352/-. b. That all payment have been made through account payee cheques. 4 4. That the Ld. AO has erred in law as well as on facts in initiating the penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5 The above grounds of appeal s are independent of, and without prejudice to each other. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing of these grounds.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that in this case, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.5,26,400/- on account of difference of purchase price and circle rate of the property u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.