TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of stamp valuation. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has stated in his order that no inquiry was conducted by the AO before invoking the provisions of section 69B of the Act and no evidence is brought on record by the AO that some extra consideration was paid by the assessee for acquiring the property over and above the amount of sales consideration as shown in the sale deed. It is not understood as to why the value taken by the Registrar of properties for purpose of stamp duty payable can be considered as the sole consideration, and not any amount higher or lower than that. Payment of stamp duty cannot be sole criteria to presume that assessee must have paid that much amount for purchase of the property. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purchaser of the property Shri Ram Prasad was ever called by him before taking any contrary view or to disbelieve the agreement to sellJn the present case, assessee never said that she had made any payment for purchase of the plot which has been purchased by her mother in joint name of the assessee, against a sale consideration of ₹ 10,00,000/-. Since no payment is claimed to have made by the appellant to make investment in the plot purchased by her mother in her joint name, and no contrary evidences are brought on record by the AO before concluding that assessee made any investment out of undisclosed sources, and what those sources are, Ld. CIT(A) did not find any reason to sustain the addition made by the AO for an amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of ₹ 1,20,080/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that assessee jointly (with her mother Smt. Sudha Garg) purchased a plot measuring 1217 meter at Pargana Loni, Ghaziabad, for a total consideration of ₹ 10,00,000/-, value of which was taken by the Registrar of Properties for stamp valuation purposes at ₹ 34,09,000/-, and stamp duty was paid of ₹ 3,08,100/-. Thus, according to the AO total amount paid for the said plot was ₹ 37,17,100/- (Rs.34,09,000 + ₹ 3,08,100), as against claimed by the assessee and her mother ₹ 10,00,000/- i.e. the amount mentioned in the sale deed, and admitted by the seller of the property. The AO considered that the assessee has made investment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee as well as the various judgments supporting the claim of the assessee. He has stated that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has rightly deleted the additions in dispute and requested that appeal filed by the Revenue may be dismissed. 5.1 On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO. 5.2 We find that Ld. CIT(A) have examined the impugned assessment order and the averments made by the AO therein. He considered the written submissions, precise summary of facts, and the evidences placed by the assessee in the paper book. After considering all these he was also of the considered opinion that provisions of section 69B cannot be invoked in the case of the assessee, as no books are maintained by the assessee. We find th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 50C cannot be invoked in the case of the assessee, as assessee is one of the purchaser of the property, and provisions of section 50C applies to the Seller of property. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that Ld. AO has also not brought on record to show that any contrary view was taken by the Assessing officer of the Seller for the said property. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has also considered the various judgments relied upon by the assessee, and after considering those judgments, Ld. CIT(A) did not find any reason to sustain the addition made by the AO in the hands of the assessee, in the absence of any contrary or corroborative evidences brought on record. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly get support from the judgment of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Garg is not the mother of the assessee, nor it is disputed that the amount of ₹ 11,00,000/- was not received by Smt. Sudha Garg on the dates mentioned above. We find that it is also seen from the impugned order, that there is no discussion by the AO that Smt. Sudha Garg or the purchaser of the property Shri Ram Prasad was ever called by him before taking any contrary view or to disbelieve the agreement to sellJn the present case, assessee never said that she had made any payment for purchase of the plot which has been purchased by her mother in joint name of the assessee, against a sale consideration of ₹ 10,00,000/-. Since no payment is claimed to have made by the appellant to make investment in the plot purchased by her mothe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
