“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)

Raj Kumari Singhal, Mount Abu vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 108/JODH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH,JODHPUR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

DCIT, Central Cicle-1, Jodhpur vs. Sanjay Singhal, Mount Abu

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 101/JODH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH,JODHPUR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

ITO Ward - 14(1), New Delhi vs. Kv Global Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8689/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kranti E. Khobragade, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Assessing Officer. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to take higher amount, as provided in the law. I.T.A. No.8689/Del/2019 5 6.11 Section 56(2)(vii)(b) read with Explanation and applicable Rules has specifically provided that the fair market value of the unquoted shares shall be determined as per the prescribed

Ramesh Mannava, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as mentioned herein above

ITA 252/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam01 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 252/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Mr. Ramesh Mannava, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 5-60-213/1, Msr Cotton Ward-2(1), Corporation, 4/4 Ashok Nagar, Guntur. Guntur, Andhra Pradesh-522007. Pan: Agdpm 8289 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

value and the sale consideration of the immovable property [Rs. 33,34,000 – Rs. 18,34,000] by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

DCIT Circle-20, Delhi vs. Mahabir Singh Mittal, Delhi

In the result, appeal and cross objection both are dismissed

ITA 829/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Amul sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti chakraborty, CIT(DR)

Section 142ASection 153ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

ITA No.- 829/Del/2022 Mahabir Singh Mittal IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘E’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K

Shri Bhupinder Singh ( Prop) the Nest Hotels & Motels, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 250/ASR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250oSection 56(2)(vii)

assesseeis dismissed. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. The ld. AR vehemently argued and first relied that on section 56(2)(vii)(b) the relevant Act is duly reproduced as below:- “Income from other sources 56(1)……………………………… (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality

DCIT Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Sumit Mittal, Delhi

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 833/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasl. Ita/Co No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 2011-12 Dcit Sumit Mittal Circle – 20 A-23/01, Lawrence Road, Delhi Industrial Area, North West Delhi, Delhi-110 035 2. Co No.9/Del/2023 -Do- Sumit Mittal Dcit (In Ita No.833/Del/2022) Circle – 20 (Pan : Aegpm 9069 R) Delhi 3. -Do- Dcit Kailash Mittal Circle – 20 A-23/01, Lawrence Road, Delhi Industrial Area, North West Delhi, Delhi-110 035 4. Co No.10/Del/2023 -Do- Kailash Mittal Dcit (In Ita No.831/Del/2022) Circle – 20 (Pan : Aaipm 8100 H) Delhi 5. -Do- Dcit Aanshika Mittal Circle – 20 A-23/01, Lawrence Road, Delhi Industrial Area, North West, New Delhi -110 035 (Pan : Adupa 7586 J) Assessee By Shri Shri Anmol Sinha, Adv. Revenue By Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.11.2023 O R D E R

Section 142ASection 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP

DCIT Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Kailash Mittal, Delhi

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 831/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Section 142ASection 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP

DCIT Circle-20, Delhi vs. Aanshika Mittal, Delhi

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 828/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Section 142ASection 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP

Shri Bhadresh Ramniklal Nagda, Jamnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1), Jamnagar

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/RJT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 56

submission of both the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that the ld.AO made addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) by taking view that a plain reading of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) made it clear that Sub-section and clause ... assessee that land purchased by the assessee is agricultural land falls within the exemption of capital asset under section 2(14) and section 56(2)(vii)(b) is not applicable, was not accepted by holding that he has already taken a contrary view in appeal no.CAS3 334/16-17 dated

Rekha Singh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 29(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2406/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhrekha Singh Vs. Ito 29(3)(2) F 1103, Sai Radha 307, 3Rd Floor, C-10, Complex, Lbs Marg, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Bhandup (W), Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400078 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Auxps8355F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh IyerFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Singh

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

2 AY 2015-16 Rekha Singh 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeals ((NFAC) has erred in denying the benefit of Section 56(2)(vii) (b) by stating that Letter of Allotment is not a registered sale deed and thus cannot be considered as date of agreement. 3. The Ld. CIT(Appeals ... property, therefore, the AO was of the P a g e | 3 AY 2015-16 Rekha Singh view that provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the IT Act to be applied. On query the assessee explained that as per the proviso to section 56(2)(vii

Poonam Dhavalkumar Shah, Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT/ACIT/JCIT/ITO -NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2220/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar SutharFor Respondent: MS Smitha V. Nair

Section 250Section 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM I.T.A. No. 2220/Mum/2023 Assessment Year

Anwar Hussain Khan, Bulandshahr vs. ACIT, Circle, Bulandshahr

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 2955/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Shri Chandra Mohan Gargshri Anwar Hussain Khan Vs. Acit S/O. Shri Maqshood Circle Hussain, C/O. Royal Gas Bulandshahr Services, G.T. Road Khurja, Bulandshahr Pan No. Aamph 9619 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2023

Section 56(2)(vii)

assessees' share worked out to Rs. 1,24,35,500/-. The assessee was asked to explain as to why the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) be not applied to his case and the difference of Rs.75,55,500/-, between the purchase consideration and the circle rate value value ... assessee in his explanation has argued that he has purchased the land as stock in trade trading asset whereas the applicability of section 56(2)(vii)(b) is restricted to capital assets only. 4. The contention of the assessee has been examined and it is found that, the same

ACIT Circle-15(2), New Delhi vs. Lifestyle Probuild Pvt Ltd, Ghaziabad

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3552/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: AO; that valuation report dated 15.03.2012 prepared by the Chartered Accountant as per rule 11UA

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Verma, Sr. DR

Section 56(2)(viib)

passed a very reasonable and elaborate order. Furthermore, we find it appropriate to refer to the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and Rule 11UA as under :- 9 ITA No.3552/Del./2019 “Section 56(2) provides for addition in certain cases. Sub- section (viib) thereof reads ... appreciated the provisions of law as under :- “17. Now coming to the mandate of the Act, it is noted that section 56(2)(vii)(b) provides for addition in case of premium obtained from shares exceeds the fair market value of the shares. Fair market value is defined

Rakeshbhai Gemabhai Oad, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(5), Surat

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

ITA 510/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.510/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Rakeshbhai Gemabhai Oad, Vs. The Ito, 9, Purshottam Nagar Society, Ward-2(3)(5), Opp. Jalaram Petrol Pump, Amroli, Surat Surat – 394107, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaepo2316D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Bipin Jariwala, Advocate Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2023

Section 143(3)Section 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

parte order. The Ld. Counsel also contended that the issue involved in assessee’s case was relating to the Provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act wherein the Assessing Officer has made the addition on account of difference between registered value and the value as per section ... 2)(vii)(b) without making a reference to the Department Valuation Officer as required by the proviso after sub-clause (c) of section 56(2)(vii)(b). This shows that the assessee did raise the issue before the ld. CIT(A) about the stamp value of the property at this

Bhawna Bafna, Jagdalpur, Bastar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Jagdalpur, Bastar

ITA 250/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Bhawna Bafna Vs The Income Tax Officer C/O. Shri Rekhchand Bafna, Jagdalpur Gurudwara Road, Moti Talab Para, Chhattisgarh-494 001 Pan: Amipb4641C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

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

facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.8,19,725/- made by AO invoking section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) The addition made by AO and sustained by Ld. CIT (A) is arbitrary, baseless and not justified. 2. In the facts circumstances

Shri Ravi Ramakrishnan, Mumbai vs. International Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid directions

ITA 646/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.646/मुं/2023 (िन.व.2014-15) Ravi Ramakrishnan, 205/404, Khar Rose Minar Building, 4Th Floor, 10Th Road, Khar (West, Mumbai 400 052 Pan: Anwpr-2793-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. International Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Room No.1729, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Anushree Gupta "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anil Sant सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 10/01/2023 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act], For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds In Appeal: “ The Following Grounds Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law, The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. Ao') Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) / Directions Passed By The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp') Under 2 Section 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act1) Is Bad, Both In The Eye Of Law & On The Facts On Account Of:

For Appellant: Ms. Anushree GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

erred in confirming the variation proposed by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs.45,62,270 under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as income from other sources and has also erred in invoking the amended provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act for years

Shyam Sunder Bhaeti, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Jodhpur

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 57/JODH/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 (Through Virtual Mode) Late Sh. Shyam Sunder Bhaeti, Versus Income-Tax Officer, Through L/H. Ram Kishore Bhaeti Ward-1(4),Jodhpur. 122 C, Krishna Mandir Road, Subhash Chowk, Ratanada, Jodhpur. Pan: Aiopb9503H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Divya Phophalia, C.A. Revenue By : Sh. Rajeev Mohan, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.09.2023

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Phophalia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR

Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to addition of an amount of Rs.4,65,187/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Briefly, the facts are, the deceased assessee was a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee ... value as per the declared sale consideration and as determined by stamp duty authority has to be treated as income under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Though, the assessee objected to the proposed addition, however, rejecting the objection of the assessee, the Assessing Officer added an amount

Rhythm Polymers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Delhi-7, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 423/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

than the stamp duty value, the explanation of the assessee was not acceptable to him in the light of provisions contained in section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Ld. PCIT therefore, applying Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act held the impugned assessment as erroneous ... issue of purchase of property for a consideration lower than the stamp duty value in the light of the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto

Saleem Ahmed Khan, Boon Electronic, Corporation Market Naudara Bridge, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No 88/Jab/2022 is not maintainable, ITA

ITA 88/JAB/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur14 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri H.S Modh, Advocate,ARFor Respondent: Shri.Rajesh Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR

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

disputed issue as envisaged by the Ld. AR that the CIT(A) was erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.35.28 lakhs under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act irrespective of the fact that the assessee has made payments for purchase of property through account payee cheques