TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orrect, hence not tenable. However, the ld. CIT(A) under the wrong presumption went on to hold that the said provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act were explanatory and hence retrospectively applicable. Though we agree with that, the amended provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act would be applicable for the assessment year under consideration however, the reasoning given by the ld. CIT(A) in our view, was not correct, rather it was a simple case where the amended provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act were directly applicable for the assessment year under consideration. In view of the above observations, we do not find merit in these grounds raised by the assessee/appellant and the same are accordingly decided agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant without objectively considering the applicable legal provisions and judicial decisions available on the subject. 2) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the authorities below were unjustified in making additions of ₹ 6,63,329/- and ₹ 43,45,222/- merely on the ground that the value adopted by the registration authorities for the purpose of payment of stamp duty at the time of purchase was higher than the apparent consideration. 3) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the authorities below ought to have ascertained the true market value of the properties purchased and should not have blindly adopted the value with reference to which stamp duty was demanded; as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D/R. 3. Ground No.-1: Ground no. 1 is general in nature. 4. Ground Nos.-2 to 5: The assessee vide ground nos. 2 to 5 has agitated against the confirmation of the addition of ₹6,63,329/- ₹43,45,222/- made by the AO u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act ) in respect of difference in the purchase value of the properties as compared to the value fitted by Stamp Duty Authority. 4.1. The brief facts relating to the issue are that the AO observed that the assessee had purchased a property measuring 1030 sq. ft. at 27/19/1, Atapara Lane, Kolkata-700 050, on 13.12.2013 at a consideration of ₹24,00,000/- but the value of the said property was assessed by the Stamp Duty Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. Being aggrieved by the said order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has come in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. We have heard the ld. D/R and gone through the record. We find that the contention of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) was that the amendment brought to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act vide Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 would not be applicable for the assessment year under consideration. We, at this stage, deem it fit to refer to the relevant provisions of Finance Act, 2013 (17 of 2013). The opening lines of the Finance Act, 2013 (17 of 2013) read as under: An Act to give effect to the financial proposals of the Central Government for the financial year 2013-2014 . The said Act was brought at the be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ked to explain about the source of the cash, the assessee failed to explain the source of the aforesaid cash amount paid for the purchase of the property. The AO, therefore, treated the said amount as unaccounted income of the assessee and added the same to the taxable income of the assessee. During the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee argued that no such cash payment has been made for the purchase of the property. However, the assessee failed to submit any explanation regarding the source of the amount paid for the purchase of the property. In view of this, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the AO. Before us, neither anyone appeared nor any document filed to show the source of the cash payment ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
