TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 1074X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the three grounds are reproduced below:- 1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 21,87,041 u/s.69. 2. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that in view of various judicial pronounce makes addition U/s.69 cannot be confirmed simply on the basis of value determined for stamp duty purposed. He also ought to have appreciated that legal fiction created by Sec.50C is only for the purpose of capital gains not for the purpose of Sec.69. the addition ought to be deleted. 3. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have given a specific opportunity to the assessee before sustaining the addition in view of Sec.50C ought to have decided the matter after hearing the assessee on that aspect of the matter. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere. Further as far as the Stamp Act is concerned, the stamp duty is paid on the Market Value unlike Section 50 C for capital gains there is no such provision to consider market value for 69/69B etc. We have already provided the names and addresses of the seller through various documents submitted during the course of assessment proceedings. Unless any inquiry is made with him for arriving at true consideration, the actual consideration, paid by the undersigned should not be doubted. In view of the above, no addition should be made under section 69/69B etc., because there is no such deeming provision to take Jantry Value for the purpose of 69/69B . 2.1. However, the Assessing Officer was not convinced and held that the Jantri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the amount expended or in any Financial Year he has found that an expenditure has been incurred by an assessee, then such an amount if not disclosed be held as an unexplained money invested or expended by the assessee. Contrary to this, in the present case, there is no supporting evidence or cogent material in possession of the Revenue to demonstrate that this assessee has actually expended the amount towards purchase of agricultural land more than what was documented. The next issue is, as raised by the Learned CIT(Appeals), that the provisions of section 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961 could have been applied by the Assessing Officer because of the said special provision now inserted in the Statute. Even this approach of Learned CIT(Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt shown by the purchaser in the purchase deed. Apart from this difference, no other evidence was available to establish that the actual consideration paid by the purchaser was higher than what was declared. In view of the circumstances, the appellant is the purchaser of the property and is not attracted by s. 50C of the Act. Further, there is no evidence for applying s. 69B which has been done by the AO. Also relying upon the plethora of judgments discussed above, I am of the opinion that there is no justification to sustain the addition made by the AO on this account. As a result, the ground of appeal is allowed. 4.1. This question has again been answered in an unreported decision of ITAT Ahmedabad SMC-A Bench in the case of M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
