ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — August 2020

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not applicable to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) was introduced by the Finance Act, 2013, effective from 01.04.2014 (AY 2014-15). The assessee had entered into an agreement for the purchase of the property on 13.08.2012, and paid part consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that the law applicable as on the date of entering into the agreement should be applied. Since Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) was not in the statute as on the date of the agreement, it could not be made applicable. The Tribunal also referred to the CIT(A)'s observation regarding genuine reasons for delay in registration due to bank loan issues. The Tribunal found no evidence of excess consideration paid by the assessee over the sale agreement or deed. Relying on the reasoning in M. Siva Parvathi & Others, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, deleting the addition. Grounds related to the adoption of fair market value were not adjudicated as the appeal was decided on the primary issue. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, and consequently, the assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, both appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that Section 40A(3) was not applicable as the payments did not represent purchases and no expenditure was claimed in the P&L account. No adverse material was presented to contradict this finding.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, both appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.