TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court decision in the case of Sanjeev Lal Vs. CIT [ 2014 (7) TMI 99 - SUPREME COURT] in this regard supports the above proposition. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. - I.T.A. No. 2102/Mum/2019, 1926/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) - - - Dated:- 1-3-2021 - Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) And Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) Assessee by: Shri R.K. Singh Department by: Ms. Usha Gaikwad ORDER Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- These are cross appeals by the assessee and Revenue arising out of the order of learned CIT(A) dated 28.1.2019 and pertains to A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Grounds of appeal raised in assessee s appeal read as under :- That on facts and circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out that the appeal falls in any of the exceptions carved in the said CBDT circular. Accordingly Revenue s appeal stands dismissed as below tax effect, hence, not maintainable. Assessee s appeal :- 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s. Rajendra Metals Supply Corporation and deals in ferrous and non-ferrous metals. The assessee had entered into an agreement dt. 24.03.2014 for purchase of flat No. 2401, 24th floor, Orion Tower, Rajaram Mohan Roy Road, Mumbai 400 007, for a consideration of ₹ 1,52,00,000/- against market value of ₹ 1,87,33,499/- for which he paid a stamp duty of ₹ 9,37,000/-. In reply to show cause notice as to why the difference on stamp duty value and agreement val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rice of the flat and terms of payment is not quoted in the allotment letter 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the AO proceeded to add ₹ 35,33,499/- being the notional difference in the amount of stamp duty value and the actual consideration paid for purchasing the flat |to the total income of the assessee u/s 56(2)(vii(b) of the I.T.Act, 1961 under the head income from other sources. 8. Upon assessee s appeal learned CIT(A) noted that the assessee has filed additional evidence. Learned CIT(A) considered the same. Learned CIT(A) rejected the assessee s contention that stamp value as on date of allotment should be taken as he found that the assessee has failed to adduce satisfactory evidence that the date of agreement is 6.8.2010. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
