“Section 56(2)(vii)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)(b)543 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 56(2)(vii)(b) is CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal (338 ITR 485), cited in 69 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal

338 ITR 485 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

The revenue must prove that an assessee received extra consideration beyond the declared value; a Departmental Valuation Officer's (DVO) report alone is insufficient to establish such receipt.

Calcutta in Reliance Jute Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer

150 ITR 643 · 1984 · High Court

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer (AO) is not required to refer the valuation to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) if the AO has conducted a detailed inquiry and is satisfied with the cost of construction. Strict adherence to procedural requirements is essential; failure to comply with mandatory conditions renders the assessment based on such non-compliance invalid.

Gateway Leasing (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT

117 Taxmann.com 442 · 2020 · High Court

citing judgments

A notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, is barred by limitation if the original assessment was completed under section 143(3).

Joseph Mudaliar v. DCIT

130 Taxmann.com 250 · 2021 · Reported

citing judgments

The amendment to section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by inserting the third proviso through the Finance Act, 2018, is curative and applies retrospectively. This means the tolerance band for the difference between sale consideration and stamp duty value, introduced by this amendment, is applicable to earlier assessment years.

CIT v. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD.

221 Taxmann 25 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

Assessments initiated without proper jurisdiction, such as under section 153C without the necessary foundation, are null and void and must be annulled.

Mubarak Gafur Korabu v. ITO

117 Taxmann.com 828 · 2020 · ITAT

citing judgments

Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which deals with income from acquisition of property for inadequate consideration, does not apply to agricultural land purchased by an assessee, as it is not considered a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act.

Radha Kishan Kungwani v. ITO Ward

185 ITD 433 · ITAT

citing judgments

For the purpose of determining income under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) or 56(2)(x)(b), the stamp duty value or fair market value of immovable property is to be considered as on the date of payment made by the assessee towards booking of the property, where an agreement for purchase and payment of consideration has been made prior to the date of registration.

CIT v. Kay Arr Enterprises

299 ITR 348 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

A family arrangement or settlement does not give rise to any income. This is because it represents the working out of existing rights among family members rather than a transfer of property.

Judgments citing Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

Income Tax Officer-16(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Bhavini Kartik Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5266/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Vipul ShahFor Respondent: 16/12/2025

Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

making the following additions: (a) following additions: (a) ₹36,32,297/- as income under section as income under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, being the differential stamp duty value; and 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, being the differential stamp duty value; and 56(2)(vii ... holding On merits, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted both the additions by holding that: (i) the provisions of the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) were that: (i) the provisions of the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) were that: (i) the provisions of the proviso to section

Abdurrehman Shamsulhaq Bapu, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4479/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR

Section 144C(2)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

income from other sources. Since assessee did not file any details in this regard, ld. Assessing Officer by quoting the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) added the said difference of Rs.2,85,57,920/- as income from other sources. 3.1. Further, regarding the source of investment

Late Chanchal Hiralal Shah (Represented by Legal Heir Rohit Hiralal Shah), Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6349/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 56(2)(vii)

stamp duty value of the said property determined by the stamp valuation authority was ₹57,83,400/-. Accordingly, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act were found to be applicable. It was 4 I.T.A. No. 6349/Mum/2025 noted that, the difference of ₹36,55,920/- between

Mhealth Ventures India P Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir-15(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6175/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2016-17 Mhealth Ventures India Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Of Income Tax Circle 729H Raj Legacy, Lbs Marg, Vs. 15(2) (2), Andheri, Mumbai – 400083. Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Pan – Aagcm9200P Karve Road, Mumbai – 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Viraj Mehta, Ca (Virtually Appeared) Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer, Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Has Made The Additions Of Rs.3,41,84,927/- & Rs.27,410/- Respectively Under Section 56(2)(Vii)(B) & Section 2(24)(X) As Deemed Income & Added The Same To The Income Of The Assessee. 2 Mhealth Ventures India Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

passed under section 143(3) of the Act, has made the additions of Rs.3,41,84,927/- and Rs.27,410/- respectively under section 56(2)(vii)(b) and section 2(24)(x) as deemed income and added the same to the income of the Assessee. 2 Mhealth Ventures India

Sudalai Mani Gurumoorthi, Thiruvarur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Thanjavur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3274/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3274/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr.S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

directed the AO to adopt the lower of the value as per valuation report or registering authority for the purpose of section 56(2)(vii)(b). It has been brought to our notice during the course of hearing there is no revision made to the addition and that the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Ratna Aggarwal, Delhi

ITA 21/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer Vs. Ratna Aggarwal Room No. 1210, E-2, Krishna Nagar, Block, Civic Center, New Delhi – 110051 Minto Road, New Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aefpa6066B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Patawali, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Krishna Kumar Ramawat, Sr

Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 56(2)

P a g e | 1 Ratna Aggarwal (AY: 2018-19) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE

Devyani Deepak Rawtal, Nagpur vs. ITO(It&Tp) Bhopal, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 129/IND/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. AO/Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) erred in upholding the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") amounting to Rs. 10,98,896~being 50% share of the difference between the stamp duty valuation ... Properties Ltd.” at a fair price and the seller is not a related party to assessee. She submitted that the purpose of section 56(2)(vii)(b) is to curb tax evasion by payment of money over and above fair market value but in the facts of present case, there

Ragini Bhadauria, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 49(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 9134/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 9134/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Ragini Bhadauria, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Sunila Chanana, Ca, Ward-49(1), New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amhpb7637F Assessee By: Sh. S. Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1083905805(1) Dated 19.12.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. S. Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 56(2)(vii)

sole substantive grievance herein, it is noticed at the outset that she is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action invoking section 56(2)(vii)(b) addition of Rs.13,44,519/- representing the difference between purchase price of the immovable property in question to the tune of Rs.19 ... interest Ms. Bhanu Pratap Singh in favour of Sushant Golf city/developer, Lucknow (UP). This being the clinching factual position, it emerges that section 56(2)(vii)(b) 1st and 2nd proviso(es) make it clear that such a payment made through specified channel is to be treated as the fair

Kandavara Abdul Basheer, Mangaluru vs. ITO Intl Tax Ward Mangalore, Mangaluru

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2249/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Kandavara Abdul Basheer, 1-224, Zohara Manszil, The Income Tax Officer, Church Road, Kandavara, International Tax Ward, Kinnikambla D.K., Mangalore, Vs. Mangalore. Karnataka – 574 151. Pan: Avepb7561Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, CA

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri

Sanjeev Kumar Saxena, Lucknow vs. ITO-3(4), Lucknow -New, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 99/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

impugned assessment order ignoring the fact, an I.T.A. No.99/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 3 arbitrary addition of Rs.11,59,091/- made under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 by ld. AO without any proper basis which is wholly unjustified, much too high and deserves ... assessee and the property sold by the assessee. The provisions of Section 50C(2) of the Act as well as proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act;mandate reference by the Assessing Officer to the Valuation Officer when the assessee claims before the Assessing Officer that

Sanjay Vasantrao Patil, Satana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Malegaon

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1893/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI R.K. PANDA (Vice President), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Asha Shivajirao Bhise, Latur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2110/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)

whereas market value as per stamp duty valuation is ₹ 3,03,61,000/-. The Ld.AO, therefore, invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act concluded that for the difference amount of ₹2,02,61,000/-, the addition of ₹1,01,30,500/- (50%) deserves

Zahida Bano Mohammad Yusuf Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(4)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8244/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalzahida Bano Mohammad Yusuf Shaikh A/10 Jai Hind Society, Asalpha Gahtkopar Link, Ro Mohili Village Sakinaka, Mumbai - 400072 ............... Appellant Pan: Buups3134C V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(4)(4), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ……………… Respondent Mumbai – 400020

For Appellant: Ms. Shama Mohd. Ismail Patel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

assessment year 2017-18. 2 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is against the addition made under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 3. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case are that ... Stamp Duty Authority, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the difference should not be taxed under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted that the said property is MHADA-registered and its value is determined by the relevant state authorities

Kundan Jayantilal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. ITO, Circle 4, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6522/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarkundan Jayantilal Bhatt Ito Cirlce-4, 277, Kundan Bunglow Room No. 2, Ashar Behind Yashwant Heights, Vs. It Park, 6Th Floor, Opp. Vidyavihar School, Road No. 16Z, Virar (West), Shivansai, Wagle Industrial Thane, Maharashtra – Estate, Thane, 401 303 Maharashtra- 400604 Pan/Gir No. Adjpb4878K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

Section 142ASection 142A(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56(2)(vii)

stamp duty value and the purchase consideration worked out to Rs. 81,06,000/-. 4. The Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and issued show cause notice dated 12.12.2018 proposing to treat the difference amount of Rs. 81,06,000/- as income ... section 143(3) read with section 142A of the Act, dated 21.08.2019, and made an addition of Rs. 81,06,000/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The total assessed income was determined at Rs. 1,11,16,680/-.Penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section

Naresh Kumar Morya, Narela vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 61(1), Civic Centre

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2292/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhannaresh Kumar Morya, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajiv Colony, Narela, Ward-61(1), New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahupm7348A

For Appellant: Shri H. S. Hooda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the learned CITA was justified in confirming the addition made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act on account of differential Naresh Kumar Morya consideration of immovable property in the facts and circumstances of the instant case ... learned AO recorded reasons that a sum of Rs. 3,32,960 being the differential consideration had escaped assessment in terms of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and issued notice under Section 148 of the Act on 29-07-2022 after taking approval from the competent authority

Vikas Agarwal, Sambhal vs. Income Tax Officer, Sambhal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6268/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Saim, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

NFAC/2013-14/10126979. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of Appeal: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in applying Section 56(2)(vii)(b) to rural agricultural land which is excluded from ‘capital asset’ u/s 2(14)(iii). 1 | P a g e 6268_DEL_2025_Vikas Aggarwal ... investment of Rs. 8,15,340/- was unexplained since no return had been filed and provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) were also applicable, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2021. The assessee filed return on 28.05.2021, declaring income of Rs. 4,96,270/- . While source of investment

Mamta Gourav Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7345/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 147Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

held that the assessee has received an immoveable property without consideration and the same was brought to tax, invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has since dismissed the appeal ... cases and is therefore, not a gratuitous transfer. Further, it was submitted that the AO has erred in invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, which was replaced with Section 56(2)(x) of the Act w.e.f. AY. 2018-19. It was accordingly submitted that

Mamta Gourav Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 7344/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 147Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

Sanjeev Kumar, Ropar, Punjab vs. Ward-2(2), Ropar, Punjab

ITA 303/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 303/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sanjeev Kumar, The Ito, M/S Khurana Filling Station, बनाम Ward 2(2), Chamkaur Sahib, Ropar Vs. Distt. Ropar, Punjab 140121 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Ajppk8321E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent (Physical Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 56(2)(vii)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH

Swapnal Subhash Anbhavane, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 7191/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 148Section 148ASection 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

evidences called for, the Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in making an addition of Rs.47,74,681/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in contravention of the provisions of the said section, wherein, the Agreement for the purchase ... case, the Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in making the addition of Rs.47,74,681/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under the premise that the Appellant has failed to prove that the entire consideration was paid by the Appellants