REBA ROY,COOCHBEHAR vs. A.O. WARD 2(1), COOCHBEHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 721/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 September 2024AY 2020-21Bench: SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 721/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Reba Roy….….………..…………………………………………………….Appellant [PAN: ACOPR 4109 F] Vs. AO, Ward-2(1), Coochbehar...................................................Respondent Appearances: Assessee represented by: Amit Agarwal, Adv. Department represented by: Arup Chatterjee, CIT. Date of concluding the hearing : July 2nd, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : September 30th, 2024 ORDER P2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the transaction was a gift from a Class-I relative (mother) to the assessee. Therefore, the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act were not attracted, and the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased immovable properties for a value less than the stamp duty value. The Assessing Officer made an addition under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The assessee argued that the transaction was a gift from her mother, a Class-I relative, making Section 56(2)(x) inapplicable.

What were the issues?

Whether the purchase of immovable property for less than stamp duty value attracts Section 56(2)(x) when the transaction is a gift from a Class-I relative.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(x)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SRI SANJAY GARG & SRI RAKESH MISHRA

order

: September 30th, 2024 ORDER

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ld. ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) dated 20.02.2024 for the AY 2020-21.

2.

The sole issue involved in this appeal is relating to the validity of addition of Rs. 72,35,643/- made by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO') u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act on the alleged ground that the I.T.A. No.: 721/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Reba Roy. assessee had purchased various immovable properties for a value which is less than the stamp duty value. 2.1. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the registered Gift Deed to submit that the alleged transaction was in fact the gift of immovable property by the mother of the assessee to the assessee vide registered Gift Deed No. I-3940 dated 15.05.2019. Since the aforesaid transaction was by the Class-I relative of the assessee i.e. mother of the assessee to the assessee, therefore, the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act are not attracted in this case, hence, the impugned addition is not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is ordered to be deleted.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(x)

All 565 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(x) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →