Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 988 - ITAT MUMBAIAddition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) - Difference between the agreed consideration and Valuation adopted by the DVO - Assessee is one of the party who along with four others entered into a deed of conveyance for purchase of property being land - HELD THAT:- As in view of the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii), if an individual or a HUF receives from any person from 1st day of October, 2009 but before 1st day of October 2017 any immovable property for consideration which is less than the stamp duty valuation by an amount exceeding Rs.50,000/-, then the stamp duty of such property in excess of such consideration is the income chargeable under the head income from other sources. Where the value of the property is disputed, the Ld. AO may make the reference for value of such property to the district valuation officer and such valuation shall be final. In the present case, the Assessee received 1/5th share in the above property in excess of agreed consideration. Therefore, the addition in the hands of the Assessee can only be made at the rate of 1/5th of the above difference between agreed consideration and valuation made by the Ld. DVO. This is the only request of the AR before us. The ground No.1 challenging the valuation of the property as agricultural land was not pressed. The ground No.2 was only made with respect to the restriction of the addition to the extent of 1/5th of Difference between the agreed consideration and Valuation adopted by the ld DVO. . In view of the above facts, we dismiss ground No.1 and allow ground No.2 of the appeal. Argument of the AR that Shri Murarilal Surajmal Mody is also taxed on the identical amount, therefore addition could not have been made in the hands of the Assessee is devoid of any merit. This is so because Shri Mody have received the above property on the basis of release deed from the five joint owners including the Assessee. Assessee received the property by purchase deed. Therefore, this argument cannot be accepted. Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed.
|